Queensland

Parliamentary Debates [Hansard]

Legislative Assembly

FRIDAY, 27 NOVEMBER 1970

Electronic reproduction of original hardcopy

2156 Appropriation Bill (No. 2) [27 NovEMBER] Questions Upon Notice

FRIDAY, 27 NOVEMBER, 1970

Mr. SPEAKER (Hon. D. E. Nicholson, Murrumba) read prayers and took the chair at 11 a.m.

APPROPRIATION BILL (No. 2) Assent reported by Mr. Speaker.

PAPERS The following papers were laid on the

table:-Regulations under the Liquor Act

1912-1970.

CLEAN AIR ACT AMENDMENT BILL

INmATION

Hon. S. D. TOOTH (Ashgrove-Minister for Health): I move-

"That the House will, at its present sitting, resolve itself into a Committee of the Whole to consider introducing a Bill to amend the Clean Air Act of 1963 in certain particulars." Motion agreed to.

QUESTIONS UPON NOTICE

INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT SURVEY, REDLAND SHIRE

Mr. Baldwin, pursuant to notice, asked The Minister for Industrial Development,-

Has the survey of the Redland shire for purposes of industrial development been completed and, if so. will any or all of the results be made available to interested Honourable Members at the earliest possible date?

Questions Upon Notice [27 NovEMBER] Questions Upon Notice 2157

Answer:-

"A survey of the resources of the Moreton Statistical Division of the State is being undertaken by the Department of Industrial Development in association with the Department of Economics of the University of Queensland. In addition to Redlands, the study area embraces the shires of Albert, Beaudesert, Boonah, Caboolture, Esk, Gatton, Kilcoy, Laidley, Landsborough, Maroochy, Moreton and Pine Rivers, together with the cities of Ipswich, Redcliffe and the Gold Coast. The study, which is of a comprehensive nature, involves an assessment of the present economic structure of the region. This entails a close examination of such matters as the pattern of primary, secondary and tertiary industries in the area and the characteristics and distribu­tion of the workforce and population. It is anticipated the study will be completed in January 1971. The results will be con­veyed to interested parties at the earliest possible date."

SCARNESS BOATSHED, HERVEY BAY

Mr. Ahem, pursuant to notice, asked The Minister for Lands,-

( l) As a result of a recent Ministerial decision, are the proprietors of the Scar­ness boatshed, Mr. and Mrs. S. Green, to cease all trading other than the hiring of boats as from December 1?

( 2) Did this decision follow directly on representations by the Honourable Member for lsis?

( 3) Does he appreciate that as a result of his decision and the activities of the Honourable Member for Isis, the future of the tourist industry at Hervey Bay will be placed in serious jeopardy and that undue and unreasonable hardship will be imposed on Mr. and Mrs. Green, who will virtually be deprived of their liveli­hood?

( 4) In view of these circumstances, will he reconsider his decision and thereby demonstrate an interest in the tourist development of the Hervey Bay area?

Answers:-

(1) "Special Lease No. 29913 over portion 134, parish of Urangan, contains about 6-foth perches and is for a term of 20 years from April 1, 1966. The lease stipulates that the land shall be used in connection with hiring of boats and for no other purpose, and Mr. and Mrs. S. R. Green signed an intimation dated June 30, 1969, that they were aware of all the conditions attaching to the lease, the trans­fer of which to them from Mr. A. R. Leishman, was registered on September 9, 1969. This lease was granted in priority to Mr. Leishman with the yearly rent for the first period of l 0 years being $10. A nominal rent was adopted for this well

located piece of land in recognition of the restrictive conditions of the lease and the public service performed by having boats available for hire. I have informed Mr. and Mrs. Green that the lease permits them to conduct a boat hiring business only on the leased land and does not permit them to sell fishing tackle, bait, tobacco, cigarettes, ice-cream and sweets, and I have called upon them to cease sell­ing these commodities by December I, 1970. They were also informed that failure to cease selling these commodities can only lead to forfeiture of the lease."

(2) "On December 3, 1969, a Pialba solicitor acting on behalf of Mr. and Mrs. Green inquired as to whether the condi­tions of lease permitted sale of fishing tackle, bait, tobacco, cigarettes, ice-cream and sweets. This inquiry indicated that Mr. and Mrs. Green had doubts at that time as to whether they were allowed to sell these commodities. The Land Administration Commission informed the solicitor that while the lease conditions did not presently allow the sale of the commodities referred to, the application would be investigated. Before reaching my decision I considered very carefully all representations made to me about this matter, including those by the Honourable Member for Isis and the Burrum Shire Council, and I gave the same consideration to the recommendations of the Land Administration Commission."

(3) "I do not agree that my decision in this case will have an adverse effect on the tourist industry at Hervey Bay. I well appreciate the difficult situation which confronts Mr. and Mrs. Green and indeed I have considerable sympathy for them. I would also point out, however, that it can be equally claimed that allowing Mr. and Mrs. Green to trade in commodities not permitted under the lease conditions could create hardship for other business people in the locality."

( 4) "My decision is based on legal opinion, and I am not prepared to change my decision as this would be condoning use of the lease for a purpose other than that for which it was granted. I was not aware that by accepting my Ministerial responsi­bilities I was demonstrating a lack of interest in tourist development in the Hervey Bay area, and I assure the Honourable Member that I will continue to do what I can to foster tourist develop­ment here and elsewhere in the State."

CULTURAL ACTIVITY GRANTS, BRISBANE AND TOWNSVILLE

Mr. V. E. Jones for Mr. Aikens, pursuant to notice, asked The Minister for Educa­tion,-

( 1) As the list of grants by the Cultural Activities Department, tabled by him on November 24, discloses that

2158 Questions Upon Notice [27 NOVEMBER] Questions Upon Notice

$210,300 was granted to various organisa­tions in Brisbane, including amounts to encourage singing and dancing, while only $1,500 was granted to Townsville, with not one cent of that paltry amount for the encouragement of singing and dancing, will he explain the reason for this gross discrimination in favour of Brisbane and against Townsville?

(2) Is it necessary to arrange for the publication of flowery compliments to Mr. Creedy in order to secure a grant, as is blatantly done by several organisations including the Goethe Society of Towns­ville?

Answers:-( 1) 'There has been no discrimination

against Townsville cultural organisations. All allocations are made on the basis of a fair and honest assessment of the needs and activities of each group throughout Queensland in relation to the funds that are available. This assessment is based on information conveyed by each group on application for financial assistance. The figure quoted by the Honourable Member as being allocated to Brisbane organisa­tions is, in fact, largely made up of grants to groups which are encouraged to serve the whole of the State. Of the Townsville organisations receiving grants, the Goethe Society includes singing in its activities, and the programme of the Townsville Independent Theatre includes singing and dancing."

(2) "No."

RESIDENCE FOR QUEENSLAND AGENT­GENERAL

Mr. V. E. Jones for Mr. Aikens, pursuant to notice, asked The Premier,-

Has the Government bought or does it propose to buy a house in England for the Queensland Agent-General and, if so, in what locality and what will be the total cost in Australian currency of the house, furniture and any other incidentals?

Answer:-"The Agent-General has been given an

authority to purchase the lease of premises situated at 22 Westminster Gardens, Marsham Street, London, S.W.l, together with certain furniture, furnishings and fittings for the sum of $57,491. The Agent­General has also been directed to arrange for the sale of the Government's house at Linkside, New Maiden, for the best price obtainable based on the valuation of $26,865. It will be seen that the net cost to the Government of the acquisition of the new residence will be $30,626. As any Honourable Member who has been to London would know, the present residence of the Agent-General does not permit him to adequately discharge the social obliga­tions associated with his position."

DROUGHT LOSSES BY GRAZIERS

Mr. Melloy for Mr. Bennett, pursuant to notice, asked The Minister for Primary Industries,-

( 1) Has his attention been drawn to the article in the Telegraph of August 17 setting out a claim by Dr. Graham Alexander, President of the Australian Society of Animal Protection, that too many graziers suffered financial losses because they adopted incorrect drought strategy? If so, have these financial losses been brought about by graziers' lack of knowledge and skill in regard to drought strategy?

(2) What instructions and/or advice have been given by his Department to graziers to preserve their assets during the drought?

(3) Will he arrange for a report to be compiled by Dr. Alexander setting out the technique that is desirable to preserve graziers from loss due to drought?

( 4) Was a representative of the Government in attendance during the address and the conference in the Veterin­ary School at the University of Queens­land?

Answers:-( 1 to 4) "I would refer the Honourable

Member to my Answers to the series of identical Questions asked by him on September 24, 1970. Perhaps, I could suggest that he might ask his junior counsel to keep him more efficiently briefed."

PAYMENT OF ACCIDENT CLAIMS BY INSURANCE COMPANIES

Mr. Melloy for Mr. Bennett, pursuant to notice, asked The Minister for Labour and Tourism,-

( 1 ) Is he aware of the complaint made by a garage owner regarding the long delays by insurance companies in paying accident claims?

(2) As these delays have forced many small repair shops out of business, what action will he take to expedite the payment of these claims?

( 3) What is the reason for the inordinate delay in the payment of accident claims?

(4) What was the net profit to insurance companies from premiums paid on this class of insurance for the year ended June 30, 1970?

Answers:-( I to 3) "I am not aware of the specific

complaint to which the Honourable Member refers. If he will supply full details, I shall be happy to have the matter investigated by the Insurance Com­missioner."

( 4) "The information sought is not available."

Questions Upon Notice (27 NOVEMBER] Questions Upon Notice 2159

STOCK STEALING LAW COMMITTEE DELAYS IN WORKERS' COMPENSATION SECTION, S.G.I.O.

Mr. Melloy for Mr. Bennett, pursuant to notice, asked The Treasurer,-

Mr. Hanson, pursuant to notice, asked The Minister for Justice,-

( 1) Why do people who have been injured in industrial accidents have to wait so long to receive their compensation?

(2) Why are applicants for workers' compensation treated like mendicants and forced to wait for hours at the S.G.I.O. before being attended to?

(3) Are the facilities building such that, instead interviews, there are now delays?

Answers:-

at the new of expediting more tedious

( 1 and 2) "To reach greater speed and efficiency an endeavour is being made to drastically reduce the number of Workers' Compensation claimants required to call at the office for their weekly payments. The weekly despatch of cheques has been increased from 400 to 1,400 and will increase further. The problem currently experienced is due to claimants persisting in calling for their cheques and the delays that occur in locating files, which have been distributed throughout the Workers' Compensation Department in the course of routine processing, so that they may be available to the counter staff for across the counter handling."

(3) "No."

BREAD PRICE INCREASES

Mr. Hanis, pursuant to notice, asked The Minister for Labour and Tourism,-

In view of previous experience which indi­cates that major increases in bread prices take place during Parliamentary recesses and the rumour circulating at the present time which indicates that an increase in bread prices will take place after the House adjourns for the Christmas period, will he give an assurance that such an increase will not be approved?

Answer:-

Bread prices are not controlled in Queensland. However, a review of average retail prices of selected food and grocery items in the various capital cities of Aus­tralia, taken out for the September quarter 1970 by the Commonwealth Bureau of Census and Statistics and published on November 5, 1970, indicates that the price of a 2-lb. loaf of ordinary white bread, delivered, was the same in Brisbane as in Adelaide, where bread is subject to price control. The survey indicated that the Brisbane and Adelaide price for the unit mentioned was lower than those of any of the other capital cities."

( 1) Has he recently appointed personnel to a committee to consider changes in the law relating to stock stealing? If so, was the decision to appoint such a committee influenced by a deputation from the United Graziers' Association?

(2) Will evidence be taken by the com­mittee from persons desirous of making submissions applicable to this matter?

Answers:-

( 1) "The appointment of the committee to consider changes of the law in relation to stock stealing followed a deputation from the United Graziers' Association."

(2) "I am informed that the committee will welcome submissions from any person in relation to the objects for which the committee is appointed. Any submission may be addressed to Mr. F. N. Albietz, Legal Administrative Officer, Department of Justice, Treasury Building, Brisbane."

PHOTOGRAPHS OF GLADSTONE IN "QUEENSLAND, AUSTRALIA"

Mr. Hanson, pursuant to notice, asked The Premier,-

(!) Who obtained the photographs of Gladstone appearing in the recent issue of "Queensland, Australia" as published by the State Public Relations Bureau and when were they obtained?

(2) As the photograph of the Gladstone community centre neglects to show the upper floor, which was completed some two years ago, and as the photograph of the Auckland Creek area was obviously taken many years ago and neglects to include Hanson Road, will he convey to the Bureau that in future up-to-date photographs may be obtained on request from the Gladstone Harbour Board or the Honourable Member for Port Curtis?

Answer:-( 1 and 2) "The photographs to which

the Honourable Member refers were taken some time ago by an officer of the State Public Relations Bureau. The demands on the services of Bureau photographers are, of course, very substantial, and it has not been possible to maintain an up-to­date photographic library in the Bureau. The instances quoted by the Honourable Member are unfortunate but isolated cases of this situation. However, he may be assured that every endeavour is being made to remedy the position and, for his information, firm instructions in this regard have been issued."

2160 Questions Upon Notice {27 NOVEMBER] Questions Upon Notice

BILLIARD TABLES IN HOTELS

Mr. Tucker, pursuant to notice, asked The Minister for Justice,-

( 1 ) Are mini-billiard tables now allowed to be installed in hotels and, if not, what was the purpose of accepting the amendment by the Honourable Member for South Coast to the Liquor Act Amend­ment Bill of 1970?

( 2) If they are allowed, are there cer­tain rules or regulations governing where they may be installed in hotels and, if so, what are the particulars?

(3) In the event of one hotel being granted a permit to install a table or tables while another is unsuccessful, could this not be an unfair advantage which was not envisaged when the amendment was accepted?

Answers:­(i) "Yes."

(2) "Section 51A of the Liquor Act 1912-1970 prohibits a licensee installing a billiard table on his premises without the approval of the Licensing Commission. The Commission approves the installation of these tables in bars, lounges and games rooms of hotel premises where these areas are considered suitable. Approval, when &ranted, is subject to the following condi­tions:-'The table to be covered with the cover provided when the room or place in which it is installed is crowded'."

(3) "Not necessarily. If a table were installed in a confined drinking space, it could cause inconvenience to drinking patrons resulting in a loss of patronage by that hotel."

DEPARTMENT OF VALUER-GENERAL

Mr. Davis, pursuant to notice, asked The Minister for Local Government,-

( 1) Is he aware of the unanimous vote of no-confidence in the Valuer-General which was passed at a public meeting held at Redcliffe on November 4? If so, will he ascertain from the two State Govern­ment members who were present at the meeting what action they took to defend the Valuer-General, in view of the fact that this was the first vote of no-confidence carried against a State public servant since the enactment of The Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act 1900?

(2) How many objections against deci­sions of the Valuer-General in the past two years have not been heard by the Land Court?

(3) Has the Public Service Board examined the work aspects of the Valuer­General's Department with a view to ascertaining the responsibilities of all officers employed in the Department? If so, what were the respective findings of the Board?

Answers:-(1) "On the basis of information avail­

able to me it seems that a meeting of some 100 to 200 persons, including the State Members for the District, did pass a vote of no confidence in the Valuer-General's Department as a means of expressing dis­pleasure at the recent increase in valua­tions in the area. The matter is best placed in perspective by the following statistics for the City of Redcliffe valuation:­Overall increase, 68 per cent.; total rate­able valuations, 11,783; and total number of objections lodged, 373. I am satisfied, as doubtless were the Honourable Mem­bers in attendance, that no personal attack on any State public servant was intended or implied."

(2) "1,145 appeals against decisions of the Valuer-General on objections against valuations given during the past two years have not yet been heard by the Land Court. The details are 1,060 appeals in 40 local authority areas and 85 appeals in the City of Brisbane."

( 3) "The Public Service Board has recently examined work aspects of sections of the Department in connection with staffing and salary considerations. Certain classifications and salary adjustments have been made. Others are still under con­sideration."

KARUMBA WATER SUPPLY

Mr. Wallis-Smith, pursuant to notice, asked The Minister for Conservation,-

Further to my previous Questions con­cerning a suitable water supply for Karumba, what is the present position and what is intended in the future to obtain an adequate supply of suitable water?

Answer:-"As far as the Irrigation Commission is

concerned, the position in regard to water supply for Karumba is that at present small supplies of potable water are obtained from shallow wells in the area and additional supplies suitable for laun­dry, ablutions and gardens are being supplied to individual properties through a reticulation system supplied from an artesian bore. It is not intended as far as the Commission is concerned to take any further action in regard to water supply to Karumba."

MICROWAVE OVENS IN RAILWAY GRIDDLE CARS

Mr. P. Wood, pursuant to notice, asked The Minister for Transport,-

( 1) How many Philips model H Nil 021 A microwave ovens have been installed in griddle carriages and refresh­ment rooms and have any of them been out of service since installation and, if s:1, what are the details?

Questions Upon Notice [27 NovEMBER] Questions Upon Notice 2161

(2) What is the price per unit of the (a) Philips model and (b) Toowoomba­manufactured microwave oven?

(3) What is the height, width and depth of the Philips oven and of the Too­woomba-made article?

( 4) What were the variations in heating speed between the two ovens referred to in his Answer to a Question on Novem­ber 12?

(5) If further microwave ovens are required by his Department, will he follow the "Buy Queensland Made" slogan of his Government and buy the Toowoomba­made article in preference to the imported one?

Answers:-

(!) "Twelve Philips Model HNll 02/ A microwave ovens have been installed. There have been two failures due to the Thermal fuse protecting the transformer winding burning out."

(2 to 4)-

"Model Supaspede Philips Supaspede 2601 HN 1102 2201

Outer Dimensions-(approx.)

Height .. .. 20i in. 19 in. 3ft . Width .. .. 17 in. 24 in. 3ft . Depth .. .. 18t in. 20 in. 2ft.

Oven Dimensions--Height .. .. 1i in. 9 in. 16-!: in . Width .. .. 13 in. 20 in. 19-!: in. Depth .. .. 9i in. ll in. 23 in .

Magnatrons .. 2 I 3

Power .. .. 1,200w. 2,800w. 2,200 watts

Price .. .. $895 (List) $1,100 $1,595(List)'

(5) "If the need should arise to make further purchases a decision will be made in the light of the position then existing."

SPORTS OVAL, CENTENARY HEIGHTS HIGH SCHOOL, TOOWOOMBA

Mr. P. Wood, pursuant to notice, asked The Minister for Works,-

( 1) What is the present state of work on the Centenary Heights High School sports oval?

(2) In view of the long delay in com­pleting this oval, will he arrange for urgent action to be taken to complete all work?

Answer:-

(1 and 2) "Establishment of grass to the Department's requirements is in progress and all other work is complete."

FJTZROY RIVER BARRAGE

Mr. Wright, pursuant to notice, asked The Minister for Conservation,-

(1) Have requests been made by (a) the Rockhampton City Council and (b) the landowners involved, to have the upper reaches of the Fitzroy River Barrage Scheme declared as an irrigation area?

(2) Have these requests been granted and, if so, will it be the responsibility of officers of the Irrigation and Water Supply Department to collect revenue and to supervise the irrigation activities in this region?

(3) If the Department is involved in the control of the use of the water stored., will a contribution now be made towards the cost of the construction of the Fitzroy Barrage and, if so, what is the extent of any proposed financial assistance from the Government?

( 4) Why was no financial assistance forthcoming when the scheme was first commenced and the financial bunlen was on Rockhampton ratepayers?

Answers:-(!) "No. The Fitzroy River barrage

was constructed by the Rockhampton City Council under the provisions of the Local Government Act." ·

(2) "Since the work was established under the Local Government Act, the Council has full rights to the 'safe yield' from the reservoir if it so desires, and it has full powers and rights to divert water from the reservoir for its own use. How­ever, although the Council has indicated that it is prepared to allow a portion of the safe yield, not likely to be required by the Council for many years, to be utilised for irrigation, it has no powers available to control the use of the supply made available for irrigation. Because of this lack of power, arrangements have been made with the Irrigation Commission to control the use of water for irrigation under the provisions. of the Water Act. Under these arrangements the Commission is responsible for authorising, measuring use and fixing charges for use, collecting charges and paying to the Council the amount in excess of the Commission's management costs."

(3) "No additional contribution is pro­posed to be made by the Government to the Fitzroy Barrage because the water at present being allocated for irrigation may in the long term be required for Council use. However, the Government has already provided the normal 33t per cent. subsidy on the cost of the barrage and associated works."

(4) "See Answers to (I), (2) and (3) above."

2162 Questions Without Notice (27 NOVEMBER] Questions Without Notice

BOOKSTALLS, ROMA STREET RAILWAY STATION

Mr. R. Jones, pursuant to notice, asked The Minister for Transport,-

Is it intended to have tenders for the lease of bookstalls at Roma Street Railway Station re-called? If not, has considera­tion been given to reviewing the situation to have bookstalls re-opened?

Answer:-

"Public tenders will again be called on Saturday, November 28, 1970. Subse­quent to my reply to the Honourable Member for the Tablelands on this matter an offer was received and accepted to operate the bookstall in the main vestibule at Roma Street but unfortunately the offer was later withdrawn."

S.G.I.O. BUILDING, MARYBOROUGH

Mr. Davies, pursuant to notice, asked The Treasurer,-

( 1 ) Who was responsible for the con­struction of the roof of the S.G.I.O. building, Maryborough?

(2) Who is undertaking the repair of this roof, which leaks badly, and when will the work be completed?

(3) What is the expected cost of the repairs and who will pay the biii?

Answers:-(1) "The principal contractor was N. A.

Kratzmann Pty. Ltd. That contractor engaged nominated sub-contractors."

(2) "Tenders for the repairs have not yet been called. Action is being taken to expedite the matter."

(3) "The architect's estimate is in the vicinity of $4,800 which will be borne by the owner."

QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE

MINISTER FOR WORKS AND HOUSING

Mr. HOUSTON: I direct a question to the Minister for Justice. Has the Minister in charge of police given an indication that he would like to be chairman of the Licensing Commission? If so, what are his chances other than Buckley's?

Mr. SPEAKER: Order! That is a personal question and is therefore out of ordeT.

Mr. HOUSTON: It is very important to the people of Queensland.

I now direct a question to the Minister for Works and Housing. As he has indicated on more than one occasion that he wants another Government position in preference to that of Minister, what is the reason for his seeking such a move?

Mr. SPEAKER: Order! That is another personal question and is out of order.

BUNDABERG OFFICE, GOVERNMENT TOURIST BUREAU

Mr. JENSEN: I direct a question to the Minister for Labour and Tourism. Would the Minister inform me whether the first part of his answer to my question of yesterday was formulated by him or by one of his departmental officers? I do not believe that a public servant would give such an ill­mannered and ill-conceived reply.

Mr. SPEAKER: Order! The question con­tains quite a deal of invective. However, I will allow the Minister to answer it and the hon. member will have to put up with the result.

Mr. HERBERT: I am not in the habit of having other people answer questions on my behalf.

CHAIRMAN, LICENSING CoMMISSION

Mr. BENNETT: I ask the Minister for Justice:

(1) Further to his answer to my question about the appointment of a chairman to the Licensing Commission, is he now in a position to announce the appointment?

(2) Will it be a poHtical appointment as it was when Mr. Jack Kelly, Q.C., a member of the Country Party and former secretary to Sir Arthur Fadden and Sir Francis Nicklin, was appointed?

(3) When the Minister for Works and Housing is appointed, will he retain his ministerial salary or wiii he accept the salary previously paid to Mr. Kelly?

Mr. SPEAKER: Order! It is a rather strange procedure for an hon. member to ask a question and then answer it.

Dr. DELAMOTHE: The answer is "No."

BRISBANE-CAIRNS SHIPPING SERVICE

Mr. R. JONES: I ask the Premier: Will he take immediate action to investigate the report contained in today's "Courier-Mail" that the motor vessel "Alagna", the only regular shipping link with Cairns, is to be withdrawn from service and, if necessaTy, will he, by personal intervention, seek a replacement vessel to service the Brisbane­Cairns run?

Mr. BJELKE-PETERSEN: I am not aware of the details associated with the Press statement. However, I am quite sure that the Minister concerned, the Honourable N. T. E. Hewitt, wiii give me the informa­tion so that I can pass it on to the hon. member.

MERGER OF FERTILISER COMPANIES

Mr. NEWTON: I ask the Minister for Mines and Main Roads: As the take-over bid by certain fertiliser works in the metro­politan area could affect the supply and cost

State Development and Public [27 NovEMBER] Works Organisation, &c., Bill 2163

of natural gas, which is used in the manu­facture of fertilisers, will he give the House an assurance that any reduction in the use of natural gas for this purpose will not mean an increase in its price to household consumers in the metropolitan area.

Mr. CAMM: At present there is no indi­cation that there will be any reduction in the demand for natural gas either by the fertiliser companies or by the South Brisbane gas company. So far as my powers in respect of the price of gas are concerned, I point out that I control the price of gas from the supplier to the consumer and not from the producer to the supplier. I am quite confident that the people of Brisbane need have no fear that there will be an increase in the price of natural gas as a result of any merger of fertiliser companies.

FORM OF QUESTION

Mr. BOUSEN (Toowoomba West): I had intended to ask the Minister for Transport a question without notice, but I see that he has left the Chamber.

Mr. Bennett: He knew that you were going to ask him a question.

Mr. BOUSEN: I think so.

Mr. SPEAKER: Order! Will the hon. member please put the question on notice.

Mr. BOUSEN proceeding to give notice of the question-

Mr. SPEAKER: Order! The hon. member is not in order in imputing improper motives. He may continue with the question, and I will have a look at it.

SfATE DEVELOPMENT AND PUBLIC WORKS ORGANISATION ACT AMENDMENT BILL

INITIATION IN COMMITTEE-RESUMPTION OF DEBATE

(The Chairman of Committees, Mr. Hooper, Greenslopes, in the chair)

Debate resumed from 25 November (see p. 2076) on Mr. Bjelke-Petersen's motion-

"That a Bill be introduced to provide for the establishment of an Environmental Control Council and for that purpose to amend the State Development and Public Works Organisation Acts 1938 to 1964 in certain particulars."

Mr. WALLIS-SMITH (Tablelands) (11.38 a.m.): When this debate was adjourned on Wednesday, I was replying to an interjection from the Premier, and I should like to com­plete it. The Premier seemed to be anxious to have this Bill printed. I point out that we, too, are anxious to have it printed, but there are many mo,re members who want to speak in this debate. I can understand the Premier's concern over environmental con­trol, because a change of environment affects

us all. The best example of a change of environment is that which has taken place in the life of the Premier since he was Minister for Works.

I commenced my speech on Wednesday by quoting the meaning of the word "environ­ment", and I again point out that a hospitable environment is necessary if we are to survive. We are waiting for the Premier to find such an environment.

I have noted that it is only 100 years, which is a relatively short space of time, since Y ellowstone National Park, the world's first national park, was created. It was seen then that it was desirable that certain areas typical of the locality be set aside for all time as a heritage for future genera­tions. National parks are one form of land usage.

Coming closer to home, we in Queensland are ever reminded by Government members, the Press, and other news media, of the wonderful growth of the mining industry in this State. During the last decade it has expanded to a greater extent than any other industry in Queensland. This rapid develop­ment, with the use of ultra-modern equip­ment, poses a threat to the environment, and some control measures are necessary.

When this legislation becomes law, steps must be taken to see that it is policed, and that those who do not comply with its conditions are dealt with swiftly and effec­tively. Some safeguards are provided by existing Acts. Open-cut mining by modern methods has left the country looking like a battle-field. Because man depends on the balance of nature, once it is altered his sur­vival is threatened, and present developments are doing much to upset this balance in more ways than one. Controlling the environment is one way of endeavouring to steady this increasing alteration of the balance of nature.

There is a need to preserve things and conditions that are unique. There is often need for compromise, and this will be neces­sary, not only occasionally but continually, on the part of those appointed to the pro­posed council. There is a need to preserve a representative area of indigenous flora, unique geological structures and scenic attractions, indigenous fauna in its natural setting, unique native art, Aboriginal sacred areas, areas of foreshore and bushland for public recreation and enjoyment, and natural areas designated as Aboriginal reserves. Although it may be said that some of those things are related more to conservation than to environment, conservation and environ­ment are so closely related that they cannot really be separated.

Under an Act that is similar to this legis­lation and that was recently passed in Western Australia, the Minister for Con­servation in that State is now the Minister for Environmental Control. In other words, he is similar in status to the council that is to be set up under the Bill. It is with

2164 State Development and Public [27 NovEMBER] Works Organisation, &c., Bill

a great deal of concern that I say I can see the council to be appointed in Queensland being confronted with certain difficulties because of the size of this State and the diversity of activities carried on within it. I can also see that policing the Act will be difficult.

The CHAIRMAN: Order! Will the child­ren in the gallery please endeavour to be quiet? Your voices are floating down into the Chamber, and it is difficult to hear what is being said. Please do not talk whilst you are in the gallery.

l\Ir. WALLIS-SMITH: Policing of this legislation will be of the utmost importance. The Premier of New South Wales has said that it may be necessary to give more sweeping powers to the Minister in that State. I should like the Premier to tell me whether, if it is found that the powers of the Environmental Control Council in Queensland are inadequate, the Gmernment will be able to give it greater powers. If not, what is the object of appointing it?

The proposed Bill is a completely new attempt to overcome a very important prob­lem that has developed in Queensland. In my opinion, the whole world has suddenly become aware of the need for environmental control. Everywhel'e people feel more and more out of tune with their environment but are unable to put their finger on the reason for that. To give the Committee an example of what I have in mind, let me take the case of a schoolboy leaving a country area and coming to Brisbane. He knows nothing of the industries or the means of transport in the city; he may find himself in a playground covered with bitumen from fence to fence. Whereas previously he may have been used to park land and bush land, he suddenly finds himself fenced in. Fre­quently one sees personality changes in people who are subjected to environmental changes of that type.

I conclude by making a plea to the Premier not merely to sit back when the Bill has been passed and say, "Thank good­ness that's over. We will let things jog along quietly now. We have played our part." The Government cannot claim to have played its part until the Environmental Con­trol Council is exercising the powers con­ferred on it in the way envisaged in the Bill.

Mr. TUCKER (Townsville North) (11.47 a.m.): I draw the attention of the Com­mittee to an article appearing in today's issue of "The Australian". It appears on page 4 and is headed "Country Party still split on pollution Bill". I intend to read it, because I believe it is pertinent to the debate and should be recorded in "Hansard". It says-

"The organisational wing of the Queens­land Country Party is still opposed to part of the State Government's environmental control council legislation introduced in the State Parliament on Wednesday.

"The legislation is designed, through a council representing 19 government depart­ments, to co-ordinate all activities at present directed towards stopping pollu­tion and controlling the environment.

"But the council will not have any representatives from conservation or local authority bodies. On September 22 the Country Party State president, Mr. R. L. Sparkes, said the legislation, then only a proposal, would be useless and inadequate without these representatives. Modifica­tions would be sought.

"But on October 5 he was rebuffed by the Premier and Country Party Leader. Mr. Bjelke-Petersen, who said conserva­tionists would be able to use the council to mount a strong campaign against the Government.

"In addition he said there were too many local authority and conservation groups to give them adequate representation on the council.

"It was revealed yesterday that the bill contains a compromise of both the parlia­mentary and organisational wings.

"However the organisational wing still has doubts.

"The bill, introduced by Mr. Bjelke­Petersen, provides for people from outside groups to be appointed to advisory com­mittees.

'The Premier claimed in his speech that there should be opportunity for frequent discussion and exchange of views and information with outside bodies by means of seminars and meetings.

"He said the Government had no desire to exclude outside opinion but 'because of numerous public org_anisations and institu­tions in environmental control it would be difficult for one or two to represent the diverse interests of all groups'.

"But Mr. Sparkes said yesterday the organisation would still like to see repre­sentatives of these groups on the council.

"He said that although a compromise had been forced, the whole working of the council would be watched very care­fully by the organisational wing.

"Modifications would be sought if, after a period of trial and error, the scheme or advisory committees failed.

"He said: 'I would like to have seen representatives of conservation bodies on the council. I have not seen full details of the bill but it contains the compromise agreed upon.' "

I believe that this is very pertinent to the legislation now before the Committee. I point out that the Bill is still in the intw­ductory stage, and therefore the Opposition has not yet seen it. All we know about it at the moment is what the Premier told us on 25 November, two days ago. I emphasise that we of the Opposition have not seen the Bill and have not the faintest idea of its provisions. Nor in fact have people outside

State Development and Public [27 NovEMBER] Works Organisation, &c., Bill 2165

this Chamber seen the Bill, or at least they should not have seen it as it has not yet been printed.

As I say, the Opposition is not aware of what is contained in the Bill, yet the Country Party president, Mr. R. L. Sparkes, began to stick his nose into this legislation, firstly on 22 September this year, and again on 5 October. They are the two dates I emphas­ised when I was reading from the Press article this morning. Notice of this legis­lation was first given on 13 October, 1970, when it appeared on the Business Paper. This was the first occasion that the Oppo­sition, and indeed all hon. members, were aware that there was to be legislation of this type. Yet, if he is correctly reported in today's "Australian", the Country Party president, Mr. R. L. Sparkes, said that he first spoke to the Premier about this matter on 22 September and then again on 5 October.

Government members talk about outside interference. They talk about the Q.C.E. supposedly directing the A.L.P., which of course we know it does not. But here is blatant proof that before anyone else saw this legislation, Mr. Sparkes was able to see the Premier about it on 22 September to have his say about it and to try to manipu­late the Premier, and other people concerned in this matter, along certain lines. He had another crack at it-another bite of the cherry-on 5 October, in an attempt to inter­fere with this legislation and to direct the Premier, on his own statement, on what should be done in regard to this legislation, which supposedly was being brought forward by the Country-Liberal coalition.

Mr. Hoghes: Do you want to deny organ­isations and unions the right to put their views to the Government?

Mr. TUCKER: I do not deny anybody that right. At this stage I am merely pointing out these very pertinent facts. If there is any question of direction, here is a very blatant example of direction being given by an executive officer of the organisational side of the Country Party.

Mr. Bjelke-Petersen: What about all the other organisations and individuals who sub­mitted their views?

Mr. TUCKER: The Premier can have his say later. I am pointing out how he is manipulated and directed, and how people are prepared to state blatantly in the Press that they have told the Premier what to do. That statement came from the organisational side of the Country Party. The Premier is not in control of the horse; there are many people behind him holding the reins.

This man has openly said these things, and on a previous occasion, when the Premier's position was threatened, he said he would do something about it if the Premier looked like being "rolled". I remember the Premier saying on that occasion that he would not accept the decision of his own Country

Party members if in fact they voted against him; that he would go back and see what the organisational side of the Country Party had to say.

The CHAIRMAN: Order! I have allowed the hon. member to make his point on environmental control.

Mr. TUCKER: I believe that it is complete impertinence on the part of the Country Party president that he is prepared to come out into the open and blatantly say that he interfered, or endeavoured to interfere, successfully or unsuccessfully, in the intro­duction of this Bill. He has made a farce of this Parliament. Surely this Parliament had a right to see the legislation first, to be able to speak on it and to ask whether some alterations should be made to it. But it did not come to us first. We were not able to see it first. Mr. Sparkes saw it first and had the first say on what should happen to it. I repeat, he has made a complete farce of this Parliament and I am quite pre­pared to stand up here this morning and say something about it.

I do not believe that one small section of the community, Country Party or other­wise, should be able to dictate to the Premier and others as to what should be contained in a Bill. It is the Premier and his party who should have that say. They should then bring their decision to this Parliament and, if we believe that something should be added or retracted, it should be done in this Parlia­ment and not in some back room with the Country Party president.

I believe that Mr. Sparkes is power drunk. He is prepared to come out in the open and say these things in the Press just as though he were running the country. This Parliament is running the country, and there should not be interference by any outside person.

For one moment, Mr. Hooper, I will draw your attention to what the Treasurer said last night. I think you were in the Chamber. He said there was good reason for doing away with introductory debates on legislation. What I have pointed out today is a good reason why we should retain introductory debates. In them, we are given the opportunity to reply to such statements as the one by Mr. Sparkes, and to let the people of Queens­land know what is happening behind the scenes. Blatant statements such as this, made even before a Bill is introduced and before we know what is in it, provide one good reason for the retention of introductory debates. This statement was made not after what the Premier said on 25 November, two days ago, but as far back as 22 September.

Perhaps on a milder note, the statement from the executive of the Country Party reinforces the argument put forward in this Chamber some two days ago by both the Leader of the Opposition and the shadow Minister for Conservation, Mr. Sherrington, when replying to the Premier. It appears to us that this legislation denies the right to

2166 State Development and Public [27 NOVEMBER} Works Organisation, &c., Bill

outside organisations to have a say and to lend a hand-that is, outside organisations except the Country Party executive and Mr. Sparkes. In this instance, nobody else will have the right to say anything at all. The Premier said that if he allowed conserva­tionists to be represented on the proposed council they might bring pressure to bear on the Government. It is crystal clear, therefore, that he does not want to have on this council anybody from outside organisa­tions. All he wants is 19 public servants who, efficient as they are, are overburdened with no outside interference except that of Mr. Sparkes and the executive of the Country Party.

I repeat what my leader said. Will these 19 public servants, constantly overburdened as they are with work, have the time to devote to the many things that we hope will flow from this council? So far as I am con­cerned, the answe~ is "No." In saying that, I do not reflect m any way on the capa­bilities of those public servants. Each of them is already required to do a tremendous amount of work, and they all do it with the greatest efficiency. Many of them have been appointed to other bodies and have been required to conduct surveys. For example, I can remember that Mr. Barton was one of the gentlemen who conducted a survey into freight rates.

Additional responsibilities have been placed on these public servants, who already have their plates full, yet the Government intends to appoint them to the Environmental Control Council. I do not believe for one moment that they will have time to play their intended role. The task that the council will be called upon to perform is a huge and time-consum­ing one.

The Opposition can be forgiven for believ­ing that this legislation is only window­?ressing. Some time ago the Premier prom­Ised that he would introduce legislation to set up such a council, but I am sure that after having set it up he will conveniently forget. i.t. o; course, that prospect fills the OppositiOn with trepidation.

. Environmental c_ontrol is a very important Issue. However, 1t has become the subject of political expediency. I am sure that the Country Party executive shares my view and has come to the conclusion that outsiders ne~~ t? be. appointed to the council to inject spmt mto 1t; but that will not be so.

I repeat that I do not reflect in any way upon the efficiency of the public servants who will ~e appointed to the council. However, I believe that they will not have time to devote t?emselves to the task of preserving our eJ?VIronment, so, as the Country Party executi.ve has said-it is a pity that it was not said after the Bill was printed-there is a need for outside representation on the 7ou_ncil to engender faith among the public m It. ·

Mr. MARGINSON (Ipswich East) (12.2 p.m.): On Wednesday I listened with interest to the Premier's introduction of the Bill. As some members are aware, during the short time that I have been in Parliament I have spoken twice on the serious problem of water pollution-the first was my maiden speech­and, as well, I have asked many questions about air pollution. I have looked forward with mme anxiety to the introduction oi legislation that will assist in the control of the pollution menace.

When introducing the Bill the Premier said that it highlighted a new approach to this problem. I believe that the approach has been delayed far too long in this State. He told us that it was a new outlook. I sug­gest that many of us have had this outlook for some years. He claimed it was a deter­mined attitude by the Government to have a plan for preservation of our natural environment. It is that statement that con­cerns me greatly. Like the hon. member for Townsville North, I consider the legislation to be window-dressing. I suggest that the Government is placing before the people of Queensland a half-baked attempt to honour an election promise. I wonder whether the Premier is really sincere in this so-called attack on pollution.

Pollution is a national problem and the ~ituati1;m should not . be allowed to develop m which one State Introduces legislation to combat it, whereas the adjoining State allows the present state of affairs to continue. The position with litter control is much the same. The Government tried to make Queensland local authorities responsible for litter control a?d, for sof?e years, as an alderman, I fought bitterly agamst the local authority of which I was a member taking that power unto itself unless all local authorities in Queensland adopted a uniform programme and carried it out. Pollution control should be exer­cised by the Federal Government. If Oueens­lan? attacks pollution seriously, good luck to It, but I ~oubt .that we will gain the proper beJ?efit~ l~nhl umform Commonwealth legis­latiOn IS mtroduced. That belief is supported by manv people who have investigated the matter thoroughly.

WheJ? one leading United States authority on environmental planning and conservation visited Australia in April this year he advocated that planning should be u~der­taken on a Commonwealth basis. He said tha~ water and air know no political boun­danes: that water and air know no interstate boundaries when it come to pollution.

What has been done in Queensland? We were told that there is to be an Environ­mental Control Council composed of repre­sentatives from 19 Government depart­ments. On Wednesday we were told for the first time that the Government would later introduce supplementary legislation.

I should like to outline what I have attempted to do, and what the Premier has told me in reply to questions I have asked

State Development and Public [27 NovEMBER] Works Organisation, &c., Bill 2167

him, since coming to this Assembly. I refer first to a report in "The Queensland Times" of 13 February, 1970, headed, "Bremer Pol. lution Clean-up Ordered." The report states-

"Large businesses and factories flanking the Brisbane and Bremer Rivers and their tributaries are being ordered to clean up their effluent discharges."

It then said-"Official 'action' notices are now being

posted instructing the firms concerned to submit a plan of a proposed treatment plant."

For many years industries have made a tidal sewer out of the Brisbane and Bremer Rivers. It has been customary to permit companies to establish enterprises on banks of rivers and to empty their effluent and industrial waste into the waterways. Probably the Government is the worst offender. I will refer later to what it is doing in my electorate.

The article went on to state that a timetable and details of when and how the treatment would be commenced would have to be sup­plied. It pointed out that a number of firms in Ipswich had received notices, and that offenders had been told, by letter and in con­ference, that the pollution must stop.

The article continued-"The Co-ordinator-General of Public

Works (Mr. Barton) said the anti-pollution study had been going on for about 18 months."

He said his reports indicated there had been 'a slight improvement' in the level of Brisbane River pollution. This is the important point I am leading up to. And Mr. Barton is a very able officer of the Public Service, whose ability I respect highly. He said-

"It seems inevitable there will need to be changes in legislation to enforce certain standards on the community."

A few days later, in Parliament, I asked the Premier a question without referring to that last part of the article, considering that it was up to him to find that out for himself.

The first part of my four-part question reads-

"(1) What businesses, factories, firms and persons in the area of the City of Ipswich have (a) received official action notices

· with respect to the discharge of effluent and/ or industrial wastes into the Bremer River, its tributaries, or that portion of the Brisbane River ... "

that flows within the electorate of Ipswich East?

The Premier, in reply to that portion of my question, said-

"(1) 'As negotiations have been based on co-operation rather than coercion, it is not proposed to release the names of those concerned.' "

Well and good. But it is time that we were told who these firms and industries are, because the publication of their names will assist in having this effluent cleaned up.

Mrs. Jordan: He did not tell you that Hancock Bros. has always been the worst offender.

Mr. MARGINSON: A number of industries on the Bremer River are doing this and, as the hon. member for Ipswich West says, that firm is one of them.

The second part of my question reads­"(2) Did the notices indicate a time

by which these effluent discharges must cease?"

The Premier's reply reads-" '(a) Letters requesting abatement of

pollution have been sent to 11 pollutors .. .' "(2) 'No. The notices generally specified

a time within which a proposal for abate· ment had to be submitted. It is not pro­posed to prohibit the discharge of a pro­perly treated effluent.' "

I would not expect that. The part of my question related to Mr.

Barton's statement reads-"(4) Has the State sufficient legislative

power to prevent the pollution of rivers and streams?"

The Premier, in reply to that part of my question, used the one word, "Yes," which is in contradiction of the statement by Mr. Barton that we did not have sufficient legis· lative powers. And I believe Mr. Barton to be correct. The answer I was given by the Premier was not correct, because we are now considering the establishment of an Environmental Control Council to deal with the pollution of our air, rivers and land. In addition, this morning, the Minister for Health initiated an amendment to the Clean Air Act, and evidently there is to be supple­mentary legislation dealing with this problem. Yet I was told in February that we had sufficient legislative power.

I made another speech on this matter later in the year, in which I referred to the Bremer River as a tidal sewer. That is what it was and still is. I knew then that certain checks had been made of the oxygen content of its water. I asked the Minister for Local Government to do something about the pollution of that river. I asked the Minister for Health, by letter, if he would investigate the many complaints I was receiving of air pollution by smoke, soot and various other matter being emitted from industrial stacks in that area. I named the Swanbank Power Station, which is still polluting the air in Ipswich. I am glad that we have that industry, but I hope that some effort will be made to overcome this problem. Almost weekly people complain to me about the pollution of the air, the pollution of their homes, the deteri­oration of the paintwork on their premises, and the effect of polluted air on their laundry.

Mr. Davis: Dirty washing.

Mr. MARGINSON: Yes, dirty washing. I have written to the Minister for Health about air pollution caused by industries at

2168 State Development and Public [21 NovEMBER] Works Organisation, &c., Bill

Dinmore and Ebbw Vale, and in each instance I have been told that the Clean Air Act, which was passed in 1965, grants those industries exemption from its provisions till May 1972. Officers have visited my elec­torate as a result of my complaints, and I give credit for that, but that is as far as I get. All that we are old is, "We will be able to do something after May 1972." I do not know what amendments are proposed to the Clean Air Act and I await them with great interest.

The Minister for Local Government, when he took office, was the first Minister to make an inspection of the Brisbane River. On that occasion, the Minister and Mr. Henry, who is one of his officers from whom I have great respect, found as many as 700 pipes dis­charging industrial effluent into the Brisbane River. The Press described the Minister as the first Minister ever to make such a trip, and, following it, the Minister described the Brisbane River as a tidal sewer.

I feel that action should have been taken a long time ago to control pollution. This problem has come under notice particularly in the last five to seven years, and it has been attacked early. But is the Government really attacking it? Or is it bringing the Bill forward simply to enable it to say, "We promised this in our election policy. We are bringing it in now, even though we promised it 18 months ago."

The Minister for Local Government sug­gested heavier penalties for pollution offences. In one Press statement he spoke of heavier fines, and even mentioned the possibility of a fine of $20,000 for using waterways as sewers. I hope the Government will not allow the position to go unchecked by merely submiting to what it sees as the inevitable. Taking that attitude would surely lead to the destruction of our environment, the destruction of mankind, and the destruc­tion of the State of Queensland.

Mr. DEAN (Sandgate) (12.19 p.m.): I am fully aware of the desire of the Premier and the Government to get this Bill through the House as speedily as possible, but I feel impelled to be consistent, if nothing else, in this Chamber. Over the years I have raised, by means of speeches and questions, the very important matter of air pollution and, in particular, pollution of waterways. I also expressed similar thoughts when I was a member of the Brisbane City Council, but unfortunately there is no record of those speeches.

I believe that the Government is attempting to pilot the proposed Bill through this Assembly with unnecessary speed. In spite of that, every hon. member should take the opportunity, while the field of debate is wide, to express his thoughts on this very serious and vital problem, which is worrying the people of Queensland greatly.

The hon. member for Ipswich East referred a short time ago to the wide range of the problem, and I agree with what he said. As

a matter of fact, later in my speech I shall quote from the remarks made by His Royal Highness, Prince Phillip, at a conference held some time ago on environmental control, in which he said that a wider approach to the problem was needed.

When approaching Brisbane from any point of the compass one has only to look at the skyline of the city to see that, despite what some people say, air pollution has reached serious proportions. I cannot understand why drastic action has not been taken to imple­ment the provisions of the existing Clean Air Act. From time to time legislation is passed in this Chamber the provisions of which are never implemented, and the hon. member for Ipswich East, with that in mind, referred particularly to the Clean Air Act. I have not seen any reports in the Press of instances in which firms or individuals have been punished under that Act, and people wili carry out their responsibilities only if they know that they will be punished if they do not.

Motor vehicles are probably the main offenders in the field of pollution. As I drive to the city each morning, I follow vehicles pouring out filth, and I am sure that other hon. members have a similar experience. The foul gases poured out by internal combustion engines in bad repair are an outstanding cause of air pollution. A newspaper article that I have before me says that smog has increased greatly since the introduction of diesel buses in the city. I have been informed by technical experts that gases from diesel engines are not the worst offenders in polluting the air, that far more carbon monoxide comes from the engines of ordinary motor vehicles. However, it is very unpleasant driving behind a diesel bus or any other vehicle that is pouring gases through its exhaust.

I referred in this Chamber in 1963 to the question of pollution, and at that time I highlighted the failure of the Government to co-operate with the Brisbane City Council in preventing pollution of the Brisbane River. As I said on that occasion, it is too much to expect a local authority to foot the bill for a purification plant to treat the ~ewage of a city the size of Brisbane before It enters the river. In 1963 I was told by experts that 40,000,000 gallons of untreated se~age were being poured into the Brisbane . Rw~r <:ach day. Goodness knows how much IS gomg rnto the river today. Although untreated sewage is very unpleasant and makes a contributio? to pollution, it is not the great menace tha_t It is sometimes thought to be. The chemical side-effects produced by the discharge of untreated sewage into the water are the main danger.

I have referred also in this Chamber to the shortage of water supplies in many areas. People who ought to know say ~hat the y;orld is running short of pure water, and m an earlier speech I dealt ·briefly with the recycling of water, especially by industrial and commercial undertakings. Very little

State Derelopment and Public [27 NovEMBER] Works Organisation, &c., Bill 2169

consideration has been given by the Govern­ment to saving and utilising waste water, much of which is lost through evaporation or runs into the river, or to the recycling and re-use of water from industrial concerns.

I turn now to a speech by His Royal Highness Prince Philip at the European Con­servation Conference at Strasbourg on 9 Feb­ruary this year. Referring to the pollution of the atmosphere and of waterways, His Royal Highness said-

"We cannot postpone decisions any longer. The burden of responsibility rests squarely on us and our generation. People realise that the last 100 years have wit­nessed a scientific and technological explosion. Most people are now aware that there has also been an increase in human population to almost plague proportions.

Of course, that cannot be said in regard to Australia, but we should take heed of what has happened in many countries where there has been a great increase in population. Before such a situation is allowed to develop in our country, and in our State in particular, the Government should act more speedily than it has done hitherto. A move is now being made, but I make the strong plea and appeal to the Government that when this particular legislation becomes Jaw-and it will become law--efforts be made to imple­ment its provisions and alleviate this very serious problem.

His Royal Highness went on to say-

"It is just as well to recognise that any measures taken to protect our environment will be unpopular in some quarters and they will inevitably cut across national boundaries."

I say that this matter should be dealt with not only on a Queensland basis but on a basis of co-operation with other States of the Commonwealth, which have this same problem.

During one of my trips down south some years ago I had a look at the Werribee sewage farms in Victoria and saw what was being done there in the disposal of effluent from that district. The system was very interest­ing and educational. We should pay a com­pliment to many of our early pioneers, par­ticularly those in Victoria, who saw the need to acquire large areas of land for that pur­pose. Victoria has sufficient sewage-farm land to cope with the requirements of the City of Melbourne or any other densely popu­lated city for the next 100 years.

Prince Phiiip made an excellent speech. It is certainly too long for me to make a detailed analysis of it or to try to put it

all on record, but I think certain portions of it are worthy of being recorded. His High­ness continued-

"This great conference itself will mean nothing at all-in spite of the wisdom of its distinguished members- . . . "

and the conference was attended by many distinguished members from countries throughout the world-

" . . . if it does not lead to practical conservation measures m every European country."

He was speaking there of the area where the conference was being held and of the countries adjacent to it. His Highness con­tinued-

" All its discussiOns and resolutions will quickly di~,appear into the polluted atmos­phere ...

How true that is, and it will be just as true here if this legislation is not put into full effect once it becomes law.

At the opening ceremony of the European Conservation Conference, His Royal High­ness Prince Albert of Liege made similar references. He said-

"Self-discipline, a return to reason is the mental revolution that the industrial world must accept."

I know that many people operating a business in a small way would find it difficult to install the necessary plant and equipment to deal with pollution, but many of the big industrial firms in the cities could have done more than they have done towards a solution of this problem. In fact, many of them have done nothing at all. I could mention the names of some, but I will not do so. In the Hamil­ton area, which is in the Brisbane electorate -and my colleague the hon. member for Brisbane is fully aware of this because I dis­cussed it with him-1 have seen trucks being cleaned and washed. Grease and oil from them flows onto the water table, eventually finding its way into the Brisbane River or ponding around the area, causing a great problem and much inconvenience to people in that district.

To return to the report of the European conference. His Royal Highness Prince Albert said-

"We are here to launch a campaign which, we hope, will influence not only the action of Governments but also and especially the behaviour of individuals."

That sums up the matter. It comes down to each and every one of us in the community, even to people who drive along the streets and throw from vehicles, such things as half a bottle of liquid or some solid article such as a matchbox. When this Bill becomes law I think we will have to embark on an extensive education campaign so that everyone in the community will understand not only the provisions of the Bill but also the duty imposed on him to carry them out in their entirety. Nobody likes to be always

2170 State Development and Public [27 NOVEMBER] Works Organisation, &c., Bill

talking about enforcing laws or of applying drastic measures to make people do the right thing, but we must ensure that each person does the right thing so that his fellows can lead a comfortable life and enjoy a clean atmosphere. Some people do not do the right thing; that is why we pass laws, to bring their failure home to them in a forcible manner.

Prince Albert went on-"Today, those who know most about the

matter have become frightened and are wondering what to do."

Although many people know what should be done, they do not do it. There is a tre­mendous amount of talk but little action.

In my own area of Sandgate I had cause to take serious action and appeal to the auth­orities about pollution of the second lagoon. Just over two years ago a certain garage -it has changed hands many times since­was draining all its waste oil into this still­water lagoon. It has no flow, and the only time it reaches any height at all is during flooding or after heavy rain. I am happy to announce that, when the seriousness of the position was pointed out to the garage owner and he was shown how his actions could destroy the bird life on the lagoon, he ceased the practice-just in the nick of time. Today, the water is very pure. The Premier and the hon. member for Redcliffe pass it every day, and they know that it is a very picturesque, healthy little spot and a fine bird-life and native-fauna sanctuary.

His Royal Highness continued-"lt certainly will not be easy to promote

a new attitude that will harmonise the desire for progress with the needs dictated bv fact and reason, more especially as the necessarily universal and worldwide nature of any planned action and the financial sacrifices it involves will be such as to discourage the waverers."

We find many waverers in the community­some of them our closest friends. They always have a doubt. I am not expressing any doubt today as to the benefit of this legisla­tion if it is properly implemented. On behalf of Opposition members, I appeal to the Government to implement the legislation, institute a programme of education and take action against those firms and people who refuse to do the right thing by the community as a whole. That is our main concern today. As pointed out by other hon. members, we already have the Clean Air Act but still see huge volumes of smoke being emitted from the chimneys of large and small factories, which burn, without any restraint whatever, old motor-tyres and rubbish that cause heavy pollution of the atmosphere.

In addition, many jet aircraft emit large volumes of exhaust gas when landing and taking off, and eventually it causes smog. I do not suggest that jet engines that emit fumes are faulty, because all of us know that the Department of Civil Aviation insists

on a very high standard of aircraft main­tenance. The point I am trying to make is that a national effort must be made­in the air, on the land and at sea-to com­bat the pollution problem.

Although a city council ordinance prevents people from burning refuse in their yards, how many times do we see that ordinance contravened? Incinerators are designed to lessen the quantity of soot and ash that will rise into the air, but how many of us receive complaints from housewives on Monday morning about neighbours lighting fires and pouring smoke and ash all over washing? Many people light fires in their yards, without giving any consideration to the prevailing breeze and the fact that smoke might blow onto a neighbour's washing. Of course, that practice creates bad feeling between neigh­bours.

Pollution concerns everybody, and I hope that it will not be necessary to exert heavy pressure upon people to make them do the right thing and consider the welfare of their fellow man so that the community as a whole can live contentedly.

Recently the Minister for Local Govern­ment and Electricity made a boat trip down the Brisbane River. A Press article in May, 1970 reads-

"Government anti-pollution officers have found 755 pipes dischargimg waste into the Brisbane River. The Local Government Department's chief pollution control engineer (Mr. L Henry) said last week the types of discharge and the sources were being identified."

Mr. Henry should be encouraged to ensure that measures are taken to prevent the dis­charge of waste from those pipes and that companies do the right thing.

Hon. J. BJELKE-PETERSEN (Barambah -Premier) (12.38 p.m.), in reply: I intend to reserve my remarks till the second-reading stage.

Mr. Melloy: Mr. Houghton, I was on my feet.

Mr. Bjelke-Petersen: As far as I am con­cerned, we can sit here all night.

Mr. Melloy: It is not a matter of how long we sit here.

The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN (Mr. Houghton): In view of the fact that the Premier has risen and spoken, the debate is closed.

Mr. Melloy: That's very nice!

Mr. Bjelke-Petersen: I was told by the Opposition Whip that the hon. member for Sandgate was the last speaker.

Motion (Mr. Bjelke-Petersen) agreed to. Resolution reported.

FIRST READING

Bill presented and, on motion of Mr. Bjelke-Petersen, read a first time.

Farmers' Assistance (Debts [27 NovEMBER] Adjustment) Act Amendment Bill 2171

FARMERS' ASSISTANCE (DEBTS ADJUSTMENT) ACT AMENDMENT BILL

INITIATION IN COMMITTEE

(Mr. Houghton, Redcliffe, in the chair)

Hon. V. B. SULLIVAN (Condamine­Minister for Lands) (12.43 p.m.): I move-

"That a Bill be introduced to provide for the establishment of a Rural Recon­struction Board and to amend the Farmers' Assistance (Debts Adjustment) Act of 1967 in certain particulars."

As all hon. ~embers are well aware, the long . and tragic drought, augmented in its sever~ty by depressed commodity prices in certam sectors of primary industry, has created tremendous problems for the primary producers of Queensland.

It is a pretty well established fact that the farm-debt position in Queensland has degenerated more than in any other State. There is also the secondary problem that funds normally available from pastoral houses, banks and other financial institutions ha:'e b:en force~ into long-term lending. This dnft of capital has seriously reduced the ext~nt of finance which would normally be available for farm rehabilitation.

Superimposed on the low-income situation is the deterioration in the market values of properties, and landholders faced with increasing production costs, ' are in many cases beyond self-help; their resources have dwindled to the extent that their recovery can. b(_! . made possi~le only by way of availability of debt-adjustment machinery and fina~cial acco~modation on a long-term, low-mterest bas1s to sustain operations with reasonable prospects of carrying on these operations successfully.

Fundamentally, the problem is a national one because, under our fiscal system, State revenues cannot possibly sustain the sort of borr<;Jwing facilities that industry survival reqmres. The many forms of drought-relief measures already offered by the Government have been, of course, of significant assistance to farmers, but the injection of new finance is the essential ingredient of any reconstruc­tion plan.

Honourab1e mer:nbers. will recall my public state~~~ts on pohcy With respect to private sub_d_IVlswn of lea~ehold land designed to facilitate property-size adjustment as between Crown tenants. A development of this policy will be essential in many areas, supplemented by the use of such Crown land as may be available for additional-area purposes to be competed for by eligible and qualified applicants in the locality.

The crucial aspect is the availablity of finance by purchasers who would buy out ei~her singly or severally, a person who may Wish to leave the industry, and I think it will be ag~eed that ~he seller is entitled to go out wtth somethmg for perhaps a lifetime's endeavour.

There is, of course, debt-adjustment machinery in existence within the Farmers' Assistance (Debts Adjustment) Act of 1969.

Recently the Commonwealth Parliament passed legislation to ensure validity of com­positions or schemes of arrangement under State legislation. This will preserve and revive the effective operation of debt-adjust­ment schemes. The Prime Minister has advised that balances held in the fund may be applied to the clearance of unsecured debts. This is very important, because people in country towns with unsecured debts have played a great part in assisting those who have been affected seriously by drought con­ditions and particularly falling wool prices.

Of course, debt adjustment is something quite distinct from farm reconstruction in the broad context. Total reconstruction connotes a very comprehensive action plan. Major policy in this connection will hinge upon decisions at Commonwealth level on the extent of financial participation. There are good reasons to anticipate that the Common­wealth will act to replenish the Federal Aid Rehabilitation Fund as it is drawn upon by the States.

The Bill proposes the setting up of a State Rural Reconstruction Board and for the vesting of responsibility for administra­tion of the Act in the Minister for Lands. Naturally, a board of this nature must be widely representative of a great variety of interests-administration, financial institutions and all primary industry. At the same time, it is undesirable that it be numerically unwieldly. After thorough consideration, it has been decided that a board of seven members will provide all necessary repre­sentation.

The board, to be appointed by the Gov­ernor in Council, will consist of a chairman (to be appointed as such by the Governor in Council); two representatives of creditors of farmers; two persons experienced in farming operations ("farmer" and "farming opera­tions" are, of course, defined in the Act); a member of the Land Administration Com­mission; and a representative of the Depart­ment of Primary Industries.

It is essential that one of the Land Admin­istration Commission members be included on the board so that he can advise the board and fortify deliberations in matters of land law and its administration, and historical aspects and patterns of Crown land settl~­ment. The incidence of land tenures Will inevitably and importantly arise in many situations requiring decision by the board.

The representative of the Department of Primary Industries will likewise be the channel to the information store built up by that specialist department over a long period of years.

Except for other amendment by way of renumbering of sections, the Act has not been further reviewed at this stage. Its

2172 Farmers' Assistance (Debts [27 NovEMBER] Adjustment) Act Amendment Bill

existing structure will permit of inaugural activities and the utilisation of credits in the existing allocation within the fund.

It will be appreciated that the Rural Reconstruction Board is novel in concept in this State. As a statutory body corporate, it will have to assume duties and respon­sibilities of a most important nature in the public interest. It will have to consolidate its own launching pads. One of its first functions will be to inquire into the problems affecting rural industries and to recommend remedial measures for consideration by the Government. The board will also review the total provisions of the Act in the light of machinery requirements commensurate with and decisions on the limit and replenish­ment aspects of the Federal Aid Rehabilita­tion Fund.

It is for that reason that I do not propose to speak at length today on the various forms that reconstruction will take. I believe that this will be the function and responsibility of the board. As I have indicated, all types of primary industry and financial institu­tions will be represented on the board, and one of its first tasks will be to consider the over-all situation of primary industry. It will then advise me. I, in turn, will advise the Government, and there will be a necessity for later amendments to the Act once the board is functioning.

I have little doubt that all members are in agreement that the constituting of a Rural Reconstruction Board in this State is com­pletely justified, and I commend the Bill for favourable consideration.

Mr. O'DONNELL (Barcoo) (12.51 p.m.): I am rather astounded that the Minister did not take advantage of the opportunity given by the introduction of this Bill to inform the Committee what the Government really thinks about the situation that has developed as a result of, in the main, drought, as well as falling prices in certain industries, and the over-production that has complicated the whole situation of the primary producer, par­ticularly in this State. As I said, I am astounded.

The Minister for Lands is rather given to making Press statements, and I must say that I appreciate his courtesy in sending me copies of them. Again I must say that I am disappointed that he has not taken advantage of this occasion to record in "Hansard" the case for the State so that It can be referred to the Commonwealth Government as the opinion of the Government of the day.

Mr. Sullivan: That was done years ago.

Mr. O'DONNELL: But it has not been recorded for the information of hon. mem­bers and all the organisations in Queensland that are vitally interested in the proposed Rural Reconstruction Board. I feel that there has been quite a let-down in a matter that, because of the immediate need for rural reconstructiOn, has been widely discussed throughout the countryside.

Primary producers' organisations, business people in rural areas, people associated with Government activities such as the railways, schools, police-indeed, all people in coun­try areas-are vitally interested in rural reconstruction. They realise that all facets of life in rural communities are affected when the primary producer is hit. I there­fore thought that the utmost publicity would have been given to this situation by a resounding speech from the Minister. How­ever, I was disappointed.

There has been a certain amount of dilly­dallying. In certain respects I do not alto­gether blame the Minister for Lands, because, in the setting up of this Rural Reconstruction Board, it is essential for the State Govern­ment to have the support of the Federal Government. It is only in recent days that the Federal Minister for Primary Industry, Mr. Anthony, has stated that the Common­wealth Government has at last agreed to the establishment of rural reconstruction boards not only in Queensland but also in all other Australian States. That is an important factor.

Mr. Su!Jivan: That would indicate that considerable representations have been made to the Commonwealth by the Government of Queensland on behalf of the people it hopes to assist. You must realise that.

Mr. O'DONNELL: That is so, but I suppose similar representations have been made by every other State Government in Australia. If that is so, more than drought conditions underlie rural reconstruction, because Victoria has been only partly affected by drought and Tasmania has not been affected by it at all.

The point is that at last the message of the need for rural reconstruction has got through to the Commonwealth Government, and there has been general agreement on the establish­ment of a national centre and rural recon­struction boards in every Australian State. That is an important decision. But let me compare it with the set-up under the marginal dairy farms reconstruction scheme. That scheme was set up on a national basis, not a State basis, and if I interpret it correctly -1 hope I do, and I think the Minister also hopes I do-assistance under it will go to where the demand is and will not be circumscribed by State boundaries. On the other hand, under the scheme proposed in this Bill, each State is to have its O\vn Rural Reconstruction Board, and each State will, therefore, desire to have a slice of the cake annually. State borders will intrude, and no doubt a specific amount of money will be made available annually to each and every State. That is the significant difference between the proposed scheme and the marginal dairy farms reconstruction scheme.

I have referred on other occasions to the need to have water conservation carried out on a national basis, and one of the important advantages of the marginal dairy farms

Farmers' Assistance (Debts [27 NoVEMBER] Adjustment) Act Amendment Bill 2173

reconstruction scheme is that it can be imple­mented on a national basis-in other words, money can be swung to wherever the need is greatest and a project can be undertaken. Under the scheme now proposed, however, a restriction may later be placed on the amount of money that the State desires. That is an important consideration, because Queensland has been more badly let down by nature than any other State. It is the second-largest State in Australia in area, and I should say that, considering its climatic conditions, types of country, and so on, and also its distribution of population, it has the greatest problems. In Western Australia, the population is concentrated in certain areas, and then there are vast expanses of country that could not be dealt with under any scheme that might be implemented. In Queensland, people live throughout the areas from Tweed Heads to Cape York, and from Rockhampton through to the western border, and they are all interested in the proposed scheme. The farther west one goes, the greater the problem and the greater call there will be on the funds that may be made available to the board.

Mr. Sullivan: I think Mr. Anthony's think­ing would be similar to yours-that Queens­land has the greatest problem. However, his opinion has been formed largely as a result of discussions that the Premier and other people and I have had with him on behalf of the people of Queensland.

Mr. O'DONNELL: I do not doubt that the Minister has had those discussions, but I do say that borders make a big difference.

[Sitting suspended from 1 to 2.15 p.m.]

Mr. O'DONNELL: When the members of the Rural Reconstruction Board are appointed they will have to prepare themselves for the task ahead of them. The Minister said today that the board would first of all have to conduct inquiries and then take remedial action.

Considerable delays have been encountered in solving the problems caused by drought. Since 1965 there has been one continuous drought, and before that, for about five years, there were sporadic droughts. From time to time in this Chamber I have urged the establishment of a drought mitigation com­mittee. A committee was appointed in about 1965 or 1966, but it has not exercised the powers conferred on it.

After considerable delay, this new board is to be established; it has yet to go into action on the two factors of inquiry and remedial action. I have no quarrel with the number of people to be appointed to the board. I think it is quite satisfactory when compared with the number to be appointed to the Environmental Control Council.

It is obvious that the tasks of the Rural Reconstruction Board will be great, far greater in fact than those that the Environ­mental Control Council will face. How­ever, I have confidence that its members will be the right men for the job. I have faith in the Public Service of this State. and I know that those who are appointed \vill give satisfactory service. I know some of them personally, and that is why I have confidence in them.

There is a similarity here with the mar­ginal dairy farms reconstruction scheme in that the Minister has said that nnance will be available to certain people to assist them in obtaining economic units for themselves. The process will be somewhat in line with that of the marginal dairy farms reconstruc­tion scheme. So there is an admission that marginal properties have developed. The report of the Lands Department indicates that a considerable acreage has been used in additional areas as a readjustment, and, if possible. that department proposes to use upwards of 200,000 acres for this purpose.

I repeat that the Minister missed a good opportunity today. From his own depart­mental report he could have referred to many cogent reasons why this State needs assistance as is indicated bv the efforts of his own department to help· these people. It was essential for the Lands Department to c?me to their aid in the way of rent remis­swns, and so forth. The reason for this was that these people are "stonv broke''. While this is realised by the Government and the Opposition, there are certain organi­sations within the State that are not aware of it.

I raise this matter here, as did the Leader of the Opposition and the Deputy Leader, because we are very concerned that in some instances apparently the pastoral firms are not coming to the party. One of the big tasks of the Rural Construction Board wiH be to consult with these firms and see if they will co-operate. The short-term loans that are issued in the form of stock mortgages and in the handling of stock that they are ~!ling and reselling, have complicated the issue for genuine people who are involved in excessive debt, but who, if given time, which is the essence of the contract, have an opportunity to make good nerhaps with minimal aid from the Rural Reconstruction Board

I suggest that the Rural Reconstruction Board should consider convening a round­table conference with the pastoral firms and any other firm that is handling sheep and cattle and has extended short-term credit to primary producers. Surely some good must flow to these firms from the rehabilitation of primary producers. I should hate to think that they were withdrawing their money to invest it in, say, mining enterprises, as they have done very well in the past from their dealings with primary producers. I know the gross margin that they require from their agents, and I also know the net margin. It is very lucrative.

2174 Farmers' Assistance (Debts [27 NovEMBER] Adjustment) Act Amendment Bill

I am aware that many primary producers have signed these documents-! suppose in many instances because they could not do otherwise-and have made themselves legally responsible for the debts. I should say that they have gone into it knowing what could happen. I admit this. I am not harsh enough to say that the firms deceived them, but I am saying that in the stress that is now apparent some thought and consideration should be given to assisting them. If this is done, it will lighten the work of the Rural Reconstruction Board and it will be to the credit of the firms involved if they co-operate. I think a sympathetic attitude would be to their benefit, because nothing endears one more to an individual than the act of assisting him.

I know that harsh words have been spoken, in this matter, but I do not use them. My only criticism was of the audacity demon­strated by these firms in saying, "Sell; reduce your debt to us; and then apply to the Commonwealth Development Bank for help." In my book this is tantamount to saying, '"Let the Commonwealth Develop­ment Bank help you to be a suc·cessful client of ours." That is obvious, and I am very worried that we will not achieve the best results unless this board can go out and estab­lis•h good public relations with the firms now practising and endeavour to get them to co-operate both in their own interests and in those of the primary producers.

I know that the Minister has introduced a system under which, with his permission, leaseholders can themselves subdivide. This certainly has its value but on lhe ouher hand, let us be reluctant in accepting the principle of "Get big or get out". I do not mind say­ing, "Get economic or you will have to get out".

Mr. Sullivan: That is exactly what we are aiming at.

Mr. O'DONNELL: I hope that is the Minister's aim. If we adopt the principle of saying, "Get big or get out", people will again find themselves in the invidious position of having to say, "We are only battlers. Nobody is interested in us".

Mr. Sullivan: Nobody can claim that that phrase originated with me.

Mr. O'DONNELL: I am not blaming the Minister; I do not indulge in personalities. However, I do blame policies, and they can can be imposed upon the people. The Country Party has been subjected to a good deal of criticism in both the State and the Federal spheres because people believe that it has lost touch with the small man in primary industry.

(Time expired.)

Mr. McKECHNIE (Camarvon) (2.26 p.m.): I am happy to support this Bill. While the matter is fresh in our minds, I remind the Opposition that our policy is not "Get big or get out". No matter how much the

hon. member for Barcoo might claim that that is our policy, I absolutely deny his allegation. Our ideal is to keep people in the country and to build up the country areas and towns, and we are working to that end.

Mr. Davies: What about the Federal Minister?

Mr. McKECHNIE: I am prepared to speak on his behalf, too. He said he was there to build up the country areas, and denies that he advocated a policy of "Get big or get out". I have discussed this matter with him. He has the interests of all country people at heart, whether they be primary producers or town residents. I am prepared to debate this matter any time it arises.

All of us are aware of the desperate plight of many primary producers, particularly those in the drought-affected areas who are either substantially or totally dependent on wool production for their livelihood. They are the ones who have had a rough and tough time. When wool is sold at 25c a lb. the primary producer does not work out how to make production pay but, instead, how much he is losing. Nobody can deny that only a loss can be involved in the sale of wool at 25c a lb. As a wool-grower and representing the wool-growers in my area, I am very happy to learn that the action taken by the Commonwealth in the past few weeks has resulted in a 20 per cent. increase in wool prices. A rise of 20 per cent. on 25c is not very great, but, in monetary terms, a rise in price from 25c to 32c a lb. repre­sents the difference between operating at a loss and operating at a line ball. While a much greater rise is needed in the price of wool, if a wool-grower has another source of income a price increase of 20 per cent. gives him the opportunity to become a viable unit in the community. The price int:rease is appreciated, and I believe that the wool producers have the prospect of further improvements in their market.

As I have said, we are all aware of the desperate plight of many primary producers as a result of drought, low wool prices, and the increase in cost of goods and servicea. With that in mind. I had intended to move the private member's motion that appears in my name on the Business Paper. As hon. members know, the Standing Orders Com­mittee decided that private members' motions should be "wiped", so the motions will dis­appear from the Business Paper. I should like to read the one that stands in my name.

I had intended moving-"That, having regard to the deplorable

and, indeed. disastrous position of Queens­land's great primary industries, particularly its pastoral and grazing industries, as a result of the long and cruel drought, of the depressed state of the world wool market and of the effects of these on the

Farmers' Assistance (Debts [27 NovEMBER] Adjustment) Act Amendment Bill 2175

State and national economy, this Parlia­ment recognises the necessity, as a comple­mentary measure to its existing drought relief programme for the implementation as soon as favourable seasonal conditions return of an overall plan designed to rehabilitate and restore these primary industries to a sound and stable financial position and commends the Government on its initiative in placing before the Commonwealth Government proposals for the establishment of a Rural Reconstruction Scheme and urges that this scheme be adopted and implemented at the earliest possible time."

I thank the Minister for Lands for giving me the opportunity to accompany him to Can­berra so that I could discuss this matter with the Honourable Doug. Anthony. As the Minister said, we were received very favourably, and Mr. Anthony co-operated in every way. Only the other day, Mr. Anthony said that two States in the Commonwealth have a Rural Reconstruction Board. Queens­land is not one of them. I am therefore pleased that this legislation has been intro­duced. I should like to see it printed this afternoon so that our people can examine it and so that we can approach the Common­wealth and say, "We have established the board; we are ready and willing, and waiting to go ahead. We want more money than the $1,500,000 of our own money that we are holding at the moment." We should support the Minister in every way in imple­menting this reconstruction scheme, and many of our people are looking to us to do that.

The Minister set a good example this afternoon by speaking briefly in the hope that the Bill would be printed so that our people can see what it contains. It is desirable that they should be aware of what is proposed, because to some extent it is deliberately flexible. We do not know exactly what the Commonwealth will do, although we do know that it is sympathetically inclined and will find money for us.

We want to establish this board. The measure should not be condemned, as it was by the member for Barcoo, because of its broad outline.

Mr. O'Donnell: I did not condemn anything.

Mr. McKECHNIE: The hon. member con­demned the broad phases of the proposal. He said that the Minister should have ex­plained the position in greater detail.

Mr. O'Donnell: That is quite right.

Mr. McKECHNIE: It was most desirable that the Minister should introduce the scheme on broad general principles so that it could be adapted to suit circumstances as they arise. This legislation is not like the dairy­ing industry reconstruction scheme legislation, which is designed to meet the needs of one industry only. I am sure the Minister would agree that this legislation is designed to help

all primary industries. It must be adjustable to be of help to the wool-grower in the West, who is suffering more than anybody else, and also to the fruit-growers on the Granite Belt. They have special needs which should bring them under the scheme. I do not want to see the scheme circum­scribed. I want its coverage to be as broad as possible so that it can be adjusted to meet the fruit-growers' needs.

I commend the Minister on the brevity of his introductory remarks and the fact that the Bill is phrased in broad, general principles that can be adopted to suit any situation. The board that is to be established will be admirably suited to deal with the problems of various primary industries. It is also necessary to be able to help the P.eople in the towns so that we can build up our rural communities.

Mr. O'Donlliell: If brevity is valuable, why don't you sit down?

Mr. McKECHNIE: I promise not to take my full time, which the hon. member for Barcoo did. I make that promise in the interests of getting the Bill printed.

The fruit industry has its problems. Fruit prices have not risen, although costs and ancillary service charges have. Growers also have fears about Britain entering the European Common Market. We should meet that danger by building up a strong, viable rural community.

Mr. O'Donnell: What about the fore­closures that are going on now?

Mr. McKECHNIE: We want to push the Bill through to meet that situation. That is why we do not wants its passage delayed, which is precisely why I do not intend to speak much longer. I emphasise that we want to facilitate the passage of the measure so that our people can examine it. We want it to be introduced quickly so that we can help our rural people and towns.

The hon. member for Barcoo said that the legislation would have State-wide effect. That is so. It is different from the dairying industry reconstruction scheme because it applies to all primary industries. It is designed so that it can be adjusted to deal with many problems and so that the board will be able to help in solving those problems as they arise.

I appreciate the action of the Common­wealth in agreeing to find $4,650,000, on a three-way basis, for the Pike Creek Dam. which in its own way will rehabilitate many people in the border region of my electorate. I want to see this scheme implemented. Con­sequently, I wholeheartedly support the Minister and the Bill.

Mr. F. P. MOORE (Mourilyan) (2.35 p.m.): I admire the motives behind this legis­lation. However, although I have been a member of Parliament for only 18 months and have not had much experience in this

2176 Farmers' Assistance (Debts [27 NovEMBER] Adjustment) Act Amendment Bill

field, I claim that its introduction is relatively late, considering that, in Queensland, we have the only surviving Country Party-dominated Government in Australia.

My research in the Parliamentary Library disclosed that the only reconstruction com­mission set up in Australia was the Common­wealth of Australian Rural Reconstruction Commission, 1944 to 1946, established by the Federal Labour Government when Mr. J. B. Chifley was Minister of State for Post­war Reconstruction. In the 24 years since then, the Liberal Party-dominated Federal Government, in which the Leader of the Country Party, "Black Jack" McEwen, is Deputy Prime Minister, has done nothing about this problem. It is about time that politicians in both spheres acted politically instead of buttering one another up, and tried to point out one another's faults.

We have developed various crop varieties but have not realised that marketing our products is the main problem. In this regard, I read the following extract from the Commonwealth of Australia Rural Recon­struction Commission Reports, Chapter 1. under the heading, "Farm Efficiency":-

"However, international trade must depend in the long run on an interchange of goods and services, and in any such system price is involved. If, therefore, Australian farmers expect to benefit by the improvement in world demand for products they must realize that efficient production to keep price as low as is consistent with reasonable wages and conditions is their part of the scheme."

In that passage, the commission outlines the problem. I do not know whether the Federal Government or the State Government has carried out that suggestion. As we have in Queensland the only Country Party-dominated Government in Australia, I should like to know of any industry, other than the beef industry, that stands on its own feet. The Government says that the drought is the came of all the problems of primary industry. I represent an area that has an average annual rainfall of 160 to 170 inches. yet primary producers there, because of their small production, have gone to the wall. Availability of finance will not alter that situation.

As the hon. member for Barcoo, Labour's shadow Minister for Lands, told the Com­mittee, it was the Federal Minister for Primary Industry (Mr. Anthony) who said, "Either get big or get out." I recall when that statement appeared in the Press. We were reliably informed that Mr. Anthony, who is comparatively young compared with the Minister for Trade and Industry, Mr. McEwen, was deservedly booed out of the halL

The Minister made a statement today concerning sellers and buyers of properties. This matter was also mentioned when the Marginal Dairy Farms Reconstruction Scheme Agreement Bill was before us. If it is felt

that growing big is the answer to the prob­lems of primary producers, can consideration not be given to placing in other industries those who leave the land? There is con­siderable economic wastage in North Queens­land today. In many places logs sawn in mills for the manufacture of plywood are being burnt, whilst in New South Wales,. ali I mentioned 12 months ago, the productiOn of chip board is being investigated. As the banana industry in my area uses 3,000,000 cardboard cartons a year at a cost of 45c each, it seems to me that a cardboard fac­tory is warranted in North Queensland.

Mr. Sullivan: Are you going to tie this up with the Rural Reconstruction Board?

Mr. F. P. MOORE: I feel that what I am saying relates to the problem. If people are to be taken off the land, they have t.o be placed somewhere else. I brought thts matter up during the debate o!l the Mar­ginal Dairy Farms ReconstructiOn Sche~e Agreement Bill, when I asked what th.e .dts­placed persons were to do. The Mtmster replied that they could be placed in other positions. So they can ~e, as long as other positions are made avmlable for theJ?: I ask the Minister to tell me where pos1tions can be found for these people in North Queensland. I am only asking ques~ions; I will accept the Minister's answers 1f they are feasible. However, I intend to have my say on these problems.

I must be honest and say that, so far as I am concerned, no decentralisation has taken place in North Queensland. I feel that the Minister's party-he 1s a member of the Country Party even though he stood as an independent against Mr. Sparkes--

The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN (Mr. Wharton): Order! The hon. member is getting away from the subject under d.scu.s­sion. I should like him to keep to the Bill as far as possible.

JY1r. F. P. MOORE: Very well, Mr. Whar­ton. Part of the rural reconstruction scheme involves decentralisation.

I feel that a further section of the report I referred to earlier deserves mention. Chapter 8, headed "Decentralisation, Economies between Producer and Consumer and Sundry Other Matters", reads-

"In either case certain basic require­ments seem to be necessary before any proposals should be considered. These are an adequate supply of water, reasonably cheap power in all cases where power is required, an efficient transport service and, finally, a sufficient development of soci:tl amenities to make the locality concerned one in which the workers will be prepared to live without continual unfavourable comparisons with life in the cities."

Farmers' Assistance (Debts [27 NovEMBER] Adjustment) Act Amendment Bill 2177

I have made statements with regard to try­ing to put people on the land. We have had cane farmers in the Spanos Road--Stevenson Road area whose loans from the regional board have been reduced from $2,000 to $300, and I appreciate that fact. This is directed to decentralisation by rural recon­struction in accordance with the terms of the commission. The article continues-

"The special factors which should decide their worthiness for consideration are: first, the size of the basic unit necessary for efficiency. It is useless to suggest the establishment of factories for work which is not sufficient in volume to carry the cost of efficient technical services and manage­ment, e.g., in textile mills. Secondly, whether the raw materials for the factory are available in the district or in districts farther from the capital city than the centre concerned."

If people are gomg to be taken away from rural areas, the Government has to supply something for them, and the conditions of the Royal Commission have to be applied and fulfilled. This is important to the Aus­tralian way of life, particularly the way of life in rural areas. These areas are unlike those represented by the hon. member for Carnarvon. In Far North Queensland there are fruit-growing areas which interest us. The responsibility for establishing industries to cope with redundancy in rural areas rests with the Government, as is outlined in this Commission's report. When the owner of a tourist resort on Dunk Island-the same person who owns the Avis Rent-a-Car firm­is able to obtain $310,000 from the Depart­ment of Industrial Development, then I feel that the rural reconstruction scheme should also benefit.

Mr. L~e: What has a rent-a-car firm got to do With rural reconstruction?

Mr. F. P. MOORE: The hon. member has many construction interests and so on.

The sum of $310,000 has been given to the owner of a resort on Dunk Island, yet locals are not welcome there. That is not creating industrial development, but merely feathering the Liberal nest. Inci­dentally, the owner of this resort claims that John Gorton will do what he asks.

Mr. Newbery: It could be put in my area; I would take it.

Mr. F. P. MOORE: That is right.

I have listed the basic requirements of primary producers, and I state again that the Country Party-dominated Government, the last of them, has not done a very good job over the 13 years it has been in power. The Government is gradually putting the beef industry in the position where it will over-produce, as other rural industries have done. The Government has allowed the Americans into Cape York Peninsula and into the King Ranch project. which I have mentioned on many occasions. I have no

70

doubt that the King Ranch project has been very well developed, but this is only what one would expect from a concern that had freehold land made available to it at $2 an acre, for 34,000 acres, and $10 an acre for the balance. That development is the pride of the area, but the important point is that anyone in North Queensland who was given the amount Mcillree received for his resort on Dunk Island would have been able to develop a large proportion of the area any­way.

Mr. Armstrong: How much land has he got?

Mr. F. P. MOORE: He is improving all the time and making applications for further land-and national forest land at that! I trust that Mr. Haley, who I know is a very good Conservator of Forests, will not con­sent to the granting of national forest land to this great Liberal supporter.

Mr. Casey interjected.

Mr. F. P. MOORE: The hon. member for Mackay would know very well that I cannot get A vis cars in the area I represent, because the business would not be lucrative enough. Mr. Mclllree goes to Dunk Island fr?m Townsville or Cairns. This reconstructiOn scheme is important to my area, but it is not being implemented by the Government giving this type of person $310,000 to sup­port himself.

People taken off the land must be pr~vided with some other employment, so new mdus­tries have to be established in their areas. I repeat that the last commission into rural reconstruction was a Labour Party-controlled commission. If anyone opposite can enlighten me on any other commission that has been conducted, I shall be grateful for the information.

Mr. Armstrong: That was destruction.

Mr. F. P. MOORE: The hon. member for Mulgrave has no time for his constituents. At this stage he feels that the Country Party is all-powerful. He has become .complacent and has made certain statements m his area. I should like to see a redistribution; I would accept any challenge from the hon. member for Mulgrave and give him a start if he elected to contest my area. The hon. member for Mulgrave finds it very ~ifficult to consider any interests other. than his. own or those of his mates. I take mto considera­tion the interests of all my constituents, and they know it.

I represent a country area and I want any rural reconstruction scheme to be based on the plan advanced by the only rural .recol!· struction commission ever conducted m this country the 1944-1946 commission. I expect this Go~ernment to consider its recommenda­tions, although I appreciate that the figures in its report are not current.

This is the only Country Party-dominated Government left.

(Time expired.)

2178 Farmers' Assistance (Debts [27 NovEMBER] Adjustment) Act Amendment Bill

Mr. CORY (Warwick) (2.55 p.m.): Before speaking to the Bill, I wish to comment briefly on certain remarks made by the hon. member for Mourilyan. He claimed that this Governme~t is the last-surviving Country Party-donunated Government in Australia.

Mr. F. P. Moore: In this State.

Mr. CORY: Obviously he does not know that this ~overnment is the only Country Party-dommated Government in Australia and that during the drought Queensland has obtained a greater amount of Common­wealth relief than any other State. He showed that he did not know the area of King Ranch, because in quoting figures he was more than 20,000 acres out.

Mr. F. P. MOORE: I rise to a point of order. I will repeat the figures. An area of 34,000 acres at $2 an acre--

The CHAIRMAN: Order!

Mr. CORY: I support the Bill. It will provide an additional flow of finance into the rural industry. In the debate on the dairy industry reconstruction scheme I said that I looked fmward to the extension of the principle of providing finance to that industry and this Bill is an extension of the sam~ principle. Owing to seasonal conditions and the effect on the economy of low prices, we must not lose sight of the importance of the adjustment of rural industries. It puts a completely different complexion on the economic structure and needs of primary industry.

The main purpose of the Rural Recon­struction Board is to overcome the difficulties created by economic strains resulting from drought, low prices, and unsure markets. I hope that the board will release many land­holders from the stranglehold of wool firms. Hon. members have, during the week, referred to that situation, but I remind the Committee that, as well as graziers, farmers also are in the stranglehold of finance com­panies. Farmers who own a large quantity of machinery are confronte-d with commit­ments that they cannot possibly meet, and I look to the operations of the proposed board to assist them in overcoming their diffict1lties. They have arisen from the com­pulsion placed upon farmers to operate on short-term finance. If they could obtain long-term finance they would not be presented with as many problems. The pressures caused by short-term finance make it impossible for farmers to operate, when they are already operating at a loss. Over the past two years the matter has come to a head, so I support the Bill and hope that the proposed board will operate as soon as possible.

I stress the fact that it is not only the large landholder or grazier who is in need of re·construction. All primary industries should be eligible, according to individual circumstances, to benefit from the scheme.

No matter what industry a person engages in, if he needs help the board should be ready and able to assist him.

The grain industry is at its lowest ebb for many years. Last night the Treasurer quoted figures showing that last year the return from winter grain crops was· only 40 per cent. of the value of the crop in the preceding year, and that this year the return will be only R per cent. of that value. How can any industry meet its financial commitments when operating on 8 per cent. of its normal income?

But the mixed farmer is in a worse posi­tion as he cannot get help under any of the industry schemes. Carry-on loan funds are provided for grain-growers, wool-growers and dairymen, but the mixed farmer, who does not qualify on an industry basis, is in an Klvidious position. The Rural Reconstruction Board should be able to assist the mixed farmer. Regardless of the primary industry affected, the board shouid be able to render assistance. It should therefore be able to help overcome the problems confronting many mixed farmers, who do not qualify on an industry basis.

I feel that the board will be asked to meet the financial problem created by the action of the Commonwealth Government in cold­bloodedly shutting .the door to further negotia­tions on the rate-rebate scheme, which is only a clumsy apology for an assistance scheme. Many farmers will be hurt as a result of the Commonwealth's action. It is useless to say, "I told you so", but the joint Government parties advisory committee made certain recommendations three or four months ago about this scheme when it was obvious that there were anomalies in it and said that unless they were overcome grave injustices would be done in many areas. Now that the Commonwealth has shut the door, it is obvious that those grave injustices have, in fact, been perpetrated.

The Premier and the Treasurer and his officers, as well as primary industry officers, all of whom were involved in the negotia­tions with the Commonwealth Treasury, did an excellent job. However, they are now in the invidious position of knowing that there are anomalies in the scheme and that it is impossible for them to render further assistance.

I am not unappreciative of what the Com­monwealth has done, overall, in drought relief, but the anomalies and weaknesses in some of the schemes recommended by it are causing many major problems. The Commonwealth provided $35,330,000 of the $41,000,000 that has been spent on drought relief and the $3,500,000 spent on rate rebates. This money has been appreciated. However, the criterion of the entire scheme is not acceptable to most people. The fact that $3,500,000 was made available is of no assistance to a person who missed out, and a vast number of people who are

Farmers' Assistance (Debts [27 NovEMBER] Adjustment) Act Amendment Bill 2179

operating on 8 per cent. of their normal income are in the areas that are receiving no assistance under this scheme.

If a person whose income has dropped from 100 per cent. to 8 per cent. in two years is not deserving of assistance, who is? However, we must accept the present scheme btX:ause it assists many people substantially. The criterion of the scheme is that a person is able to accept 50 per cent. or nothing.

I feel, and so does the Drought Advisory Oommittee, that the scheme should have a sliding scale, with perhaps 30 per cent. or 20 per cent. as the break-off point, possibly operated in local authority areas but based on individual applications with eligibility decided on what is already laid down in the existing scheme. Unless there is a sliding s·cale and a more reasonable break-off point, there is a problem.

Drought does not follow a shire boundary or a fence line, and the people on one side of the fence who are ineligible could be just as badly off as those on the other side of the fence who are eligible. This is com­pletely unjust. All primary producers, regardless of where they live in Queensland, should be given the same treatment if they have the same problem because of the same circumstances. All primary producers who have been affected by drought to the extent that they comply with th~ criterion, that is, that the earning capacity of their property has been reduced by more than 50 per cent.., or who have an equity in their property and stock lower than 25 per cent., should be eligible to apply for inclusion in this scheme, regardless of where they live in Queensland.

At the moment, a primary producer must live in an area that has been doclared drought-stricken for a minimum period of 24 months before he bocomes eligible. However, if a sliding scale could operate over a lesser number of months, with a 30 per cent. or 20 per cent. break-off point, many more people would be assisted. This would not cost much more, and would remove much of the justified criticism at present being levelled.

The eligibility of a person who applies under the scheme is decided on his earning capacity in the 1969-70 financial year, and if he is eligible he receives help during the 1970-71 financial year. Whether it rains now or not, his earning capacity during 1969-70 will not change, so there is no reason why any adjustment or amendment to this scheme cannot operate.

Any scheme that regards a month's drought as having the same significance in all areas must be regarded as only a theoretical exer­cise and not a genuine attempt to help as many needy people as possible. Let us be quite fair in this matter. On the Darling Downs, which is a grain-growing area, 12 months of drought means two complete crop failures. That period of drought would be far more significant on the Darling Downs than it would be in western Queensland. The significance of a month of drought in the

eastern part of the State is quite different from the significance of a similar period of drought in the West, and any scheme that sets out to help people who are in need must recognise that fact and provide assis­tance on a sliding scale.

The economic situation of the Darling Downs farmer is indeed serious, and it is aggravated by the stranglehold of the finance companies, which are expecting, and demand­ing, repayment commitments on machinery. I feel that only a sliding-scale system, drop­ping down to a break-off point of 20 per cent., will give the greatest amount of assis­tance. If one person misses out and the fellow on the other side of the fence gets 50 per cent., there is cause for considerable unhappiness when their situations are virtu­ally the same. If a sliding scale was used and assistance was spread over a larger area, there would be few problems and those who really need help would be assisted. A ruth­less all-or-nothing attitude is not wanted. Many who find that they are missing out are on 8 per cent. of normal income.

I cannot imagine that the Commonwealth Government did not foresee this type of anomaly, and also that many more could obtain assistance by the use of a sliding scale. As one progressed down a sliding scale from 50, to 30, to 20, the cost in each case would be proportionately smaller, which means that the total amount spent would not have to be greatly increased. Such a system would certainly go closer to achiev­ing the purpose for which the scheme was intended.

Mr. WALLIS·SMITH (Tablelands) (3.13 p.m.): When the Federal Minister for Prim­ary Industry introduced his Bill in the Federal Parliament, he expressed the hope that this scheme would be working before Christmas. I am wondering whether that is why the Minister, when introducing the Bill today, cut short his explanation of its con­tents and consequently limited our comments on its various provisions.

I am also wondering whether it is humanly possible for any work to be done on this scheme before Christmas. I am hoping that the Minister will make some statement on that matter in his reply. There is now in operation a scheme dealing with the recon­struction of marginal dairy farms, and we have been told that 58 applications received for assistance under that scheme are being examined.

I know that a lot of work has to be done, and there could be many pitfalls. One is the possibility of syndicates buying land in farming areas, and the answer given to that possibility was that peop'e could buy farm­land at any time if they had the money, and the person receiving the money should be very pleased that he was getting a good price for his farm. This is not good enough when it is realised that some of these farms have been promised or partly promised to adjoining farms in order to make the property workable.

2180 Farmers' Assistance (Debts [27 NOVEMBER} Adjustment) Act Amendment Bill

In referring to the haste with which this matter has been brought on, I am wonder­ing if the Government is trying to impress His Excellency the Governor that there is some legislation for him to sign. Up to the present time he has had virtually nothing to sign. His Excellency delivered an Opening Speech telling us about the legislation that would be brought down, and no doubt he is wondering when it will eventuate. The Premier cut short his remarks on the pre­vious Bill, and said he would speak at length during the second-reading stage. The Minis­ter for Lands will administer this Bill. For what reason, I do not know. It was intro­duced in the Federal Parliament by the Minister for Primary Industry, and in my view our own Minister for Primary Indus­tries, assisted by officers of the Agricultural Bank, should administer this Bill. He would then be able to get the assistance of officers of the Lands Department, whereas now the Lands Department will have to get assistance from the Department of Primary Industries.

A Government Member: What is wrong with that?

Mr. W ALLIS-SMim: It differs from the Federal Scheme. We can be likened to little Johnny marching in a company of 5,000 men. His mother proudly says, "Johnny is the only one in step", whereas in fact he is the only one out of step.

We should have liked to hear more from the Minister at the introductory stage of this Bill. This morning we heard the Deputy Leader of the Opposition refer to things that have happened, and I intend to touch upon them because of similar happenings to the hon. member for Logan and me at St. George recently.

The hon. member for Warwick referred to a remark of the hon. member for Mouril­yan, who mentioned the domination of the Country Party. I say that this same Country Party is dominated by people outside this Chamber. On 10 November we had to sit on a platform from 10 a.m. to 6 p.m. advis­ing people and answering numerous questions because Mr. Sparkes was having so much to say about the rural reconstruction scheme legislation. This, he felt, was an answer to these people on something they knew nothing about. The people were not satisfied with the present set-up and were looking for something else.

This same Mr. Sparkes, outside this Chamber, was able to give quite a lot of detail about this legislation for the rural reconstruction scheme. I propose to outline some of that detail. In fact, Mr. Sparkes has said he is on a committee that is advis­ing the Government on this matter. This may be all very well, and good luck to him.

Mr. Thackeray: Isn't he the president of the Country Party?

Mr. W ALLIS-SMITH: Yes.

I mention this to indicate the sources from which we have to glean some of our informa­tion in order to make something like a contribution to the debate on a Bill that was brought in so quickly and so abruptly by the Minister this morning.

Mr. Sullivan: Haven't you given any thought to the bringing in of a Bill relating to reconstruction?

Mr. W ALLIS-SMITH: When the president of the Country Party gets up to speak, I am all ears; I listen to every word he says. But I am not going to read what is said in the Press; most of the time it is only window-dressing.

Mr. Sullivan: I said, "Didn't you give any thought to the Bill beforehand?

The CHAIRMAN: Order!

Mr. W ALLIS-SMITH: I understand that, first of all, the farmer must prove that he is in need. This should not be very difficult. Most of them are in need, and ,J am wondering if they can last long enough for this scheme to assist them. Secondly, the farmer has to prove that he is the type of owner who can rehabilitate himself if given some help.

These are two very important and necessary questions rhat arise in every case. The farmer has to give various reasons why there has been a drop in income-or why he i.s in such a mess. Many of the reasons are beyond his control, and I should say that his future as a farmer is not at all bright.

I do not want it to be said that I am a "knocker". I base that statement on what has been said in the British Parliament, namely, that by next April, which is only five months away, the United Kingdom expects not to be making any further imports of rural commodities from Australia, and by 1974 she hopes to terminate the Commonwealth Sugar Agreement. These things are of even more concern to us than drought is. Drought is a happening of nature and is very difficult to overcome. However, when it comes to dealing with monopolies and reasoning with international powers, particularly with our own kith and kin in the mother country, I do not think any stone should be left unturned to achieve our objectives, which is to secure our markets at all times. The present positon should be a lesson to us and should prompt us to look continuously-not intermittently­at the possibility of obtaining markets closer to hime.

The other point I learnt at St. George concerned debts adjustment. Mr. Sparkes gave a long explanation of how this would work. He went into great detail and it was most interesting to the hon. member for Logan and myself. After outlining at length how it would work, at the very end Mr. Sparkes said, "I think that is how it will work. If I have anything to say about it­and I will have-that is what I will say."

Farmers' Assistance (Debts [27 NOVEMBER] Adjustment) Act Amendment Bill 2181

Mr. Sherrington: In other words he did not trust the Minister. '

Mr. W ALUS-SMITH: That is so. In his introduction, I do not think the Minister mentioned debt adjustment and I am not sure whether this will be do~e in the normal course of events. I do not think it will, because of the lengths to which Mr. Sparkes went tc;> explain how it worked. It was a novel 1dea, although acceptable to people ~eavily in. debt, of whom there are many m rural mdustry. Mr. Sparkes said that debts would be collated and it would then be decided what percentage of the total debt wc;mld be freed by the scheme to give the pnmary producer a reasonable chance to rehabilitate himself. I do not think the Minister mentio!Jed that po_int this morning, but I have the 1dea that th1s is one measure that will be taken.

Mr. Sullivan: It is called "composition of debts".

.Mr. WALLIS-SMITH: We did not know t~1s. I had. to draw it out of the Minister hke a dentist drawing teeth.

. Touching on the point that I raised at the I~troduc~ory stage of the Bill covering mar­gmal_ da1ry farms, namely, the operations of syndrc~tes and groups of people who buy up dmr_y farms,. I feel that I cannot over­emphasise . the Importance of this matter. If the _buymg-up of dairy farms is allowed to contmue, not a drift but a rush of people from the country to the city will result.

Recently on the Atherton Tableland certain people were offering fantastic prices for run­down dairy farms. When I say "fantastic" I mean fantastic in the view of the dairy farmers. The operations of those people were kept sceret. All that I could learn from the farmers who were offered the chance to sell their properties was that the prospective pu~chasers had the money and they were of h1gh repute. One dairy farmer suggested that. the farms were being acquired for reforestation, but his belief turned out to be incorrect.

\Yhen it i~ made public that people are anxrous to d1spose of their land at the best possible prices, syndicates are quick to rush in and offer high prices. We must take a long-term view and consider what will happen in future if two or three farms are aggregated. We must look after the interests of people who will live in the area in 10 15 or 20 years' time. I am interested in th~ people, and we should ensure that their children are allowed to grow up in an envir­onment of which we can all be proud. If there is any way open to the Minister to curh the activities of the syndicates to which I have referred, I hope he will do so.

The Deputy Leader of the Opposition referred to stock mortgages-no Government member •has mentioned them-and the hon. member for Barcoo spoke about finance companies. Their remarks show that the

Opposition is unearthing many matters that have not been raised by Government members. Before a Bill is printed, the Opposition is required to rely on com­ments made in the Press and on radio and television to learn what is in the mind of the Government, so it is important that the introduction of a Bill be debated at length to give the Opposition the opportunity to help the Government introduce legislation that will not call for future amendment.

Mr. Sulliv:m: Don't you think it would be much wiser for you to have left some of your comments until you see the Bill? Some of the things you are talking about are not even in it.

Mr. W ALLIS-SMITH: That is the admis­sion of the day. It is the very matter that was referred to by our shadow Minister. He said ~e was astounded by the Minister's introduc­tiOn of the Bill, because it told us nothing.

Mr. SuUivan: I do not have to read the Bill for you. When you have seen it and we de?ate it at the second-reading stage, you m1ght be better informed.

Mr. W ALLIS-SMITH: The Minister can work out what he has or has not to do, but let me work out what I have to do.

Mr. Tucker: The Government cries about us not making considered comments.

Mr. W ALLIS-8MITH: As my Deputy Leader says, the Government cries about us not making considered comments at the introductory stage, when we know nothing at all about the Bill. The Minister smiles at his departmental officers as if to say that I am off the track, and the Premier said to me, "I wish you knew what you were talking about." I remind him and the Minister for Lands that not all of us can be geniuses; some of us must be humble people. Thank God I am one of the humble people.

I conclude by referring to the fact that no matter how small or large any scheme is, if it is designed to assist rural industry either to rehabilitate itself or to get back on its feet, it is a worth-while one. In view of what lies round the corner, the industry certainly needs assistance, and it is necessary that landowners be encourged to remain on their properties and not move to the city. That has the blessing of all hon. members on this side of the Chamber. We do not pay lip­service. We are genuine, and we will strive to offer suggestions and recommendations that will assist our deliberations on this or any other measure that is designed to assist rural industry in Queensland.

Mr. LICKISS (Mt. Coot-tha) (3.31 p.m.): I rise to support the measure before the Committee. It could be said that it is cast before us in the shadow of the severest drought in Queensland's history, at a time when the market price for many rural pro­ducts is at its lowest ebb.

2182 Farmers' Assistance (Debts (27 NOVEMBER} Adjustment) Act Amendment Bill

Surely the man on the land must be in a dilemma. Because of the severity and length of the drought he has not the ability to produce and has had to spend most of his available capital-if he had any­in keeping his breeding stock alive. I am referring more particularly to the arid parts of the State and to the pastoral industry.

I am well aware that other industries have been just as adversely affected, but now that seasons might return to normal the primary producer is faced with unprofitable marketing conditions for the commodities he can pro­duce, and, consequently, any hope of a speedy recovery does not appear to be in sight. Certain matters should not be lost sight of. One of them is that, historically, a large area of the State is drought prone. When we look at the severity of this drought, we must also consider the climatic history of the areas concerned. Over the years there have been requests for more liberal rail freights, and efforts have been made to prove the difficulty of survival in some of the more arid parts of the State. Anyone who has studied rural economics knows that land industry occurs at a place and on a scale suited to the particular industry. Con­sequently, in the more marginal areas of the State, we require a number of safety valves. One is that the capacity to produce in seasons of plenty should be such as to tide the producer over the lean years, which history has shown the area will be subjected to, almost with monotonous frequency.

If I could say one thing of land admini­stration in Queensland, particularly since 1964, it is that the living-area concept of the old order is as dead as the dodo. The economic-area concept, permitting of size of operation based on economic considerations and many applicable facets, surely from now on must be the "in" thing. We must now consider climatic history, location, average market prices, the scale of production and capacity of economic production in a given set of average conditions, and, overriding all, the tendency in the more sophisticated countries of the world to increase rural production through capital intensification, not labour intensification.

Those principles might help to answer some of the queries raised by hon. members oppo­site. Before commenting particularly on what they have had to say today, I should like to take hon. members' minds back to 1967 when we introduced the Farmers' Assist­ance (Debts Adjustment) Act.

Mr. Jensen: Why don't you take us back to the days of Dorothea Mackellar?

Mr. UCKISS: The hon. member's men­tality has never emerged from the stone age, so he should not comment on any matter.

In that measure we introduced the question of adverse circumstances created by an act of God. and here we referred to drought, floods. etc. Under those circumstances we now find that the Farmers' Assistance (Debts

Adjustment) Act, which mirrors the Com­monwealth legislation, enables us to do a number of important things that, at the State level, we would have been unable to do.

One is that we can have a stay of proceedings. This is the only way, at a State level, that we can halt the provisions of the Bankruptcy Act to allow a breathing space, to see whether, in fact, by a composition of debts and a scheme of arrangements, we can overcome the problems of a man who is hard pressed financially and has not the liquidity to get himself out of trouble, and who, because of the number of people in a like position, has not a market for his property, even if he has the desire to leave the rural industry. For this reason it was a very wise move to introduce the Farmers' Assistance (Debts Adjustment) Act in 1967.

The hon. member for Barcoo said that, although he did not like the phrase, "Get big or get out", he did not mind the phrase, "Get economic or get out". Production from the land depends on four main factOTs. They are--

1. The capacity to produce. Surely, in the more arid areas of this State, this depends on the land size which has the productive capacity.

2. Because we are living in a time of capital intensification and n01: labour intensification leading to increased rural production, it depends on finance.

3. As in all matters, and particularly when it is related to the size of capital investment in rural enterprise, it depends to a large extent on sound farm manage­ment.

4. As in all pursuits, it depends on the marketable value of the product from the land.

It is passing strange to hear the hon. member say that he does not like the phrase, "Get big or get out", but does not mind the phrase, "Get economic, or get out". Where does he draw the line?

Mr. O'Donnell: Will you give me half an hour to talk about it?

Mr. LICKISS: It would probably take a little 1onger that that for him to convince me, but I would not take very long to con­vince him that he is wrong.

The hon. member for Mourilyan tried to get onto the same band wagon. He did not agree with the small people not being catered for. If that is tied in with the phrase, "Get economic or get out", which the shadow Minister for Lands does not mind, how does the hon. member for Mourilyan consider that a snnll cane farm-even at its optimum production for its size-can be economic if in fact it needs to be over-capitalised to produce that optimum production, which does not in any case return an adequate living to the owner?

Farmers' Assistance (Debts [27 NovEMBER] Adjustmem) Act Amendment Bill 2183

It is all very well to say a lot of \'I ords in this Chamber, but it is another thing to look at the facts and see whether the state­ment is correct. The hon. member said that while the small person should be kept on the land, the Government should be chided because it was not doing enough for decentralisation by introducing industry into the Far North. That is nothing new; it has been said many times before.

History records that Queensland is the most decentralised State of the Common­wealth. I might also add that, with the small population of this State, this has not been of great economic benefit. Never­theless, our forebears. in their wisdom, pro­vided the stwtegic planning for decentralisa­tion, and I believe that in the ultimate, with increased population, the State will reap the benefit of the decisions of those days. In the meantime, we will pay for it, and probably pay dearly.

The hon. member for Mourilyan states, on the one hand. that he wants to keep the small man on the land. That is nothing new for the Labour Party, because they believe in a peasant farming community. Agrarian socialism has always been part of their platform.

Mr. Casey: Country people have never been poorer.

Mr. LICKISS: That merely bears out what the hon. member for Mourilyan said. On the other hand, having argued in favour of keeping the small man on the land, he then argued against it by saying that indus­try should be established in the North so that the small man can leave his farm and obtain employment locally.

I hope the time will come when many people can be rehabilitated on the land. There is a continuing job for governments, both State and Federal, to investigate new markets, and I am sure that this is pro­ceeding apace now. In the meantime, the Bill is designed to help many primary pro­ducers who have spent their lifetime in rural production and who now find themselves in a most disastrous situation. If any move can be made to relieve their burden and bring justice not only to primary producers but also to those who provide services for them in the. remote parts of Australia I am all for it. But I believe that sooner ~r later this State will have to look at the more arid parts of Australia and formulate policies conducive to land usage in the 12 to 14-inch and lower, rainfall areas. '

I again recommend the establishment of a western lands commission. I believe that such a commission would be most advan­tageous in Queensland. This State has some of the most arid, and some of the most fertile, land in the country. Our lands range from probably some of the lowest rainfall are_as to some of the highest in the country. This, of course, presents complications. Most certainly we need a policy for the arid areas

if they are to be retained in some sort of productive capacity and not allowed, as has happened in some other places, to become virtually deserts.

I commend the Bill, and I hope that it will relieve the pressure presently on those who are adversely affected by drought.

Hon. V. B. SULLIV AN (Condamine­Minister for Lands) (3.44 p.m.), in reply: I was somewhat amazed at the criticism of the hon. member for Barcoo of the brevity of my introductory speech. I thought that everything that needed to be said was said. It would seem from what has been said by hon. members opposite, particularly the hon. member for Tablelands, that they think there is some scheme in operation now. The Bill has been introduced to amend the Farmers' Assistance (Debts Adjustment) Act of 1967, and provides for the establishment of a Rural Reconstruction Board. I thought I made that fairly plain.

The hon. member for Barcoo does not seem to realise that following the setting up of this Rural Reconstruction Board hon. members will have the opportunity of seek­ing advice from many committees interested in the problems of the rural industry. I am not going to enumerate those committees, but all hon. members will have the oppor­tunity of having discussions with and receiv­ing advice from these committees on prob­lems related to rural industry.

If and when the Commonwealth provides the wherewithal for this scheme-and I hope the "if" will be obliterated very soon­it will I believe be necessary to amend and consolidate this Act to allow for what the board recommends to me, and through me to the Government, for the assistance of people in rural industry who are in trouble.

l\fr. O'Donnell: That means we can expect an amendment about next March?

Mr. SULLIV AN: That could well be so. I am not one who is easily offended, but I think that the hon. member's criticism on this occasion was a little unfair, because at the introductory stage of a scheme we are a little bit in the dark as to what we will be able to achieve.

Mr. Houston: In other words, you do not know exactly where you are going at the present time.

Mr. SULLIV AN: I know where I am going, but perhaps I do not know what I am going with at this stage. Let me deal with the discussion. The hon. member for Barcoo and other Opposition members were somewhat critical of the lack of appreciation by Government members, particularly Coun­try Party members, of the problems of rural industry. On this occasion the Country Party, not the Liberal Party, was singled out.

Mr. O'Donnel:: They are not interested at all.

2184 Farmers' Assistance, &c., Bill [27 NoVEMBER] Police Superannuation, &c., Bill

Mr. SULLIV AN: I will not agree with that. A decision on any matter is not one made by the Country Party because it hap­pens to be the major party in the Govern­ment, the Country Party-dominated Govern­ment, as the Opposition likes to call it. All decisions are Government decisions.

In addition to his criticisms, the hon. member spoke in glowing terms of the officers of the Lands Department. I thank him for that. I appreciate them, too, and I am aware of their ability. But the hon. member seems somewhat reluctant to admit that the Minister has some thoughts of his own, and some ability as well. Irrespective of the recommendations made to me by my departmental officers, I still have to convince my Government of their wisdom. I think it is only fair to say that people in primary industry have been appreciative of the measures taken by this Government in drought assistance and changes in land policy.

The hon. member did thank me for mak­ing Press statements available to him. We have made it public knowledge that the machinery has been set up within the Lands Department to allow for reconstruction of rural industry once we have the where­withal to do it. I think that perhaps the hon. member could have been a little bit more charitable and given a word of praise in that regard. Of course, I know it is a pretty hard game.

The three speakers on the Government side, the hon. members for Carnarvon, Warwick and Mt. Coot-tha, did indicate that they have a pretty good knowledge of the problem. I am not saying that hon. mem­bers opposite do not have a knowledge of the problems, but it is important to appre­ciate that Government members, too, under­stand them, and I think the three hon. gentlemen I mentioned indicated that they have a keen realisation of the problems facing primary industry today.

Mr. Houston: We all know the problems. What is the solution?

Mr. SULUVAN: The Leader of the Opposition asks, "What is the solution?" I believe that I have some very good ideas, as do many other people. Maybe hon. members opposite have some, but the pur­pose of the Bill is to set up this recon­struction board, which will be required to do extensive research into the problems and give deep thought to them. I hope it will come up with recommendadons. Afte-r hon. members opposite have studied the Bill-and they could have studied it before, on the marginal dairy farms reconstruction scheme -I hope that at the second-reading stage they will be able to come up with sugges­tions that will assist the reconstruction board in its recommendations.

I could not tie up with the Bill the con­tribution by the hon. member for Mourilyan, so I will pass over that.

The hon. member for Tablelands voiced some criticism of the marginal dairy farms reconstruction Bill. Up to as late as last night we have had meetings in various dairying centres. I attended one on Wednes­day night and two yesterday, and most meet­ings were attended by at least 80 people. In Chinchilla last night, Mr. Heffernan stood in for me and I understand it was a very good meeting.

This is the way we are getting the story across to the dairy farmers. The criticism that comes from the opposite side of the Chamber about the Country Party losing support in these areas was not in any way evident at the meetings I attended. These people are very appreciative of what the Government is doing. This is the way we will be handling the rural reconstruction scheme when it gets under way; we will get close to the people and find out their prob­lems.

The Federal Government has amended the Bankruptcy Act and will allow distribution of money for unsecured debts.

I have been criticised for being short in my introductory remarks. I told the hon. member for Tablelands, by way of inter­jection, that he would be wiser to leave his remarks until he had made a study of the Bill. I said that if I had my way, there would be no debate on the introduction of Bills.

Mr. Houston: That would suit you.

Mr. SULLIVAN: It is not a matter of suiting anybody. It would ensure mme informed debate on the issues involved, and I hope that the "Hansard" report of the second-reading debate will be of value to the Rural Reconstruction Board in studying the problems confronting us and making its reoommendations and determinations.

Having said that, I feel I have covered the last of the points raised on this issue.

Motion (Mr. Sullivan) agreed to.

Resolution reported.

FIRST READING

Bill presented and, on motion of Mr. Sullivan, read a first time.

POLICE SUPERANNUATION ACT AMENDMENT BILL

INITIATION IN CoMMITTEE

(Mr. Houghton, Redcliffe, in the chair)

Hoo. A. M. HODGES (Gympie-Minister for Works and Housing) (3.55 p.m.): I move-

"That a Bill be introduced to amend the Police Superannuation Act 1968 in certain particulars."

As hon. members are aware, the Police Superannuation Act 1968 provided for a new scheme of superannuation for police

Police Superannuation [27 NOVEMBER] Act Amendment Bill 2185

personnel similar to the Public Service super­annuation scheme. It had been agreed that, as far as is practicable, the scale of benefits and the scale of subsidy applicable to the police superannuation scheme should be in keeping with the Public Service superannua­tion scheme, and, as the Public Service super­annuation scheme was amended towards the end of 1969, it is now desired to take action to amend the police superannuation scheme in the same manner.

It is proposed to vary the salary-unit schedule, which will allow contributors to increase their number of units on existing salary rates. The present police scheme pro­vides that for the first 10 years of its operation, contributors who were in the scheme when it first commenced on 7 July, 1969, will not be required to pay more than Si per cent. of salary in the case of a male contributor and 5 per cent. in the case of a female contributor, and that any additional units that may arise during this period due to promotional or other increases in salaries will be given to such contributors by payment of the 5;f per cent. or 5 per cent. maximum of salary only. This concession will not apply to units for which members contribute because of the variation in the salary-unit sc?edule, an~ for such additional units they will be reqmred to pay the appropriate rate of contribution as set out in the contribution table.

The amendment provides also for the intro­duction of 3 per cent. annual increment in benefits, ::nd this annual. increase will apply to. a~nmty benefits, mcapacity benefits, Widow s assurance benefits, and children's benefits. As far as present contributors are co~cerned, they will be required to pay their share of this increase, both on units held by them at the present time and also for all ~dditional units which they may take out dunng the balance of their service.

An examination of the amounts which some of the older members would be :equired to pay to obtain the 3 per cent. mcrease of benefits indicated that some mem­bers should be allowed to determine to what extent. they sh<;mld contribute for this 3 per cent. mcrease m benefits. Eventually it was decided that any member over 45 years of age may be exempt;d, either wholly or in part, fr~m contributmg. for the 3 per cent. annual mc~ease on umts held by him at the date this amendment becomes effective.

Retired J?Olice and widows being paid superannuatiOn allowances and pensions under the scheme that was in operation prior to 7 July, 1969, will also be granted the 3 per cent. annual increase in benefits and th_is increase applies . also to the prosp'ective Widows of such retired police. To assist these contributors over 45 years of age to meet the cost of the 3 per cent. increase in benefits, they will be given the option of paying for the 3 per cent. annual increase by fortnightly instalments or by payment of a single premium, or partly by fortnightly instalments and partly by single premium.

The number of contributors over 45 years of age is about 715, or 23 per cent. of the total force. Whilst these members over 45 years of age may elect to have the 3 per cent. added to their existing units, it is pointed out that all units which will be taken out after this amendment becomes effective must include the 3 per cent. annual-increase provision.

All contributors under 45 years of age will be required to pay for the 3 per cent. annual increase of benefits, but these members may elect to pay by single premium the increase for this 3 per cent. annual increase for all or some of those units which their past contri­butions purchased by single premium at the date of the introduction of the present scheme.

Police personnel who have retired since 7 July, 1969, and prospective widows of such personnel, and widows of retired or serving personnel who died after 7 July, 1969, will be entitled to the 3 per cent. annual increase.

The Police Superannuation Fund wiii pay the retired members' share of the 3 per cent. annual increase, 35 per cent. from interest earnings of the fund made in excess of 5t per cent., the balance of 65 per cent. of this annual increase being met by the Treasury Department.

Mr. Tucker: That is for retired people?

Mr. HODGES: Yes, that is for present annuitants.

The amendment includes a provision for contributors to commute their annuity bene­fits on retirement. Contributors may elect to commute all or any of their units of annuity, but contributors over 45 years of age will have the right of commutation of benefits in respect of only those units on which they contribute for the 3 per cent. annual increase in benefits.

It is intended also to give those members who retired under the present scheme since 7 July, 1969, and retired police officers being paid superannuation allowances the right to commute all or part of their benefits.

The existing Act provides that if a widow in receipt of assurance benefit remarries. she forfeits payment of the assurance benefit. The amendment proposes that in those cases in which a widow remarries and forfeits her assurance benefit, she again becomes entitled to the payment of her assurance benefit in the event of her becoming a widow again.

A new feature introduced into the scheme will be to allow a widow who has dependent children under the age of 16 years to apply to the Board for an increase in the rate of assurance benefit until the youngest child reaches the age of 16 years. The rate of benefit may be increased by up to 50 per cent. After the youngest child reaches the age of 16 years, the rate of assurance benefit payable will be reduced below the normal rate so that the amount by which the benefit had been increased can be repaid to the superannuation fund.

2186 Police Superannuation [27 NovEMBER] Act Amendment Bill

The present superannuation scheme pro­vides for the payment of a benefit to depend­ent children up to the age of 16 years. These benefits are payable for children of deceased pe:sonnel and deceased retired personnel. It IS now proposed to pay the additional bene­fit for dependent children between the ages of 16 and 21 in cases where the children are continuing full-time education at school. college or university,

The Bill also improves the value of reserve units. During a contributor's service, h: may convert any reserve units to normal units should the occasion arise when he can increase his holding of normal units. Under the present scheme should a contributor hold reserve units on reaching the age of retire­ment, he could obtain the surrender value only on the reserve units held by him on retireme_nt. It is now proposed that, should a contnbutor hold reserve units on retire­ment, he may be paid 35 per cent. of the value of a normal unit, or he may elect to take the commuted value of the reserve units.

These are the main features of the Bill, and generally it will increase the value of the scheme to all present contributors and provide additional benefits to retired per­so~nel and widows who are at present being paid benefits from the Police superannuation scheme.

I commend the Bill to the Committee.

Mr. NEWTON (Belmont) (4.6 p.m.): It seems to me that while the Bill contains a number of provisions that could be advan­tageous to those covered by this scheme, it contains some provisions that could be dis­advantageous to them. It is my intention to raise these points so that the Minister will have an opportunity to clarify them. His explanation could determine the Opposition's attitude to the Bill.

The first point relates to the 3 per cent. annual increase in annuity payable on units presently held by members of the Police Force, and the 3 per cent. flow-on to any additional units that might be taken out in future. During the debate on the introduc­tion of this Act in 1968, reference was made to the scheme being similar to the Public Service superannuation scheme. The Minister said that this 3 per cent. increase was in line with that granted in the Public Service superannuation scheme, which I am led to believe carried the increase because of its healthy financial state at that time.

The police superannuation scheme differs considerably from every other superannuation scheme in that it covers not only retirement, but also a number of matters, such as dis­ability which, in the case of other workers, is covered by workers' compensation.

The Opposition expects the Government to consider the percentage increase that is being applied to the contributions paid by members of the Queensland Police Force and by the Government itself. No doubt other hon. members have gone into this point more

deeply than I have. This is a very important factor because of the unusual nature of the scheme.

A hardship is placed on serving members of the Police Force who are between 45 years of age and the retiring age of 60 years, particularly those in the 50-to-60 age group. To them, this is nothing but a poor man's scheme. It has been clearly indicated that, as a result of higher contributions to pay for the 3 per cent. increase, the pay packets of police officers in this age group will be reduced to such an extent that it will be difficult for some of them, particularly those with families, to exist. In the know­ledge that contribution rates were to be increased, some took steps to see if finance could be raised to enable them to meet the higher rates, and still maintain their families and do the things that they have been accustomed to doing, on their take-home pay. However, they found it impossible to raise any money at all.

No doubt the Minister will say in his reply that if members of the scheme in this age group, or younger, feel that they are unable to pay the contributions that will be required when the Bill becomes law, they will be able to apply to the Superannuation Board for exemption.

Mr. Hodges: Members 45 years and over?

Mr. NEWTON: Yes. I am glad the Minis­ter asked that question, as I do not want to mislead the Committee. On making an application for exemption, to prove inability to pay the increased contributions it is neces­sary to disclose one's complete financial situa· tion. In fact, I have heard that the investiga­tion is so thorough that it virtually amounts to being run over with a fine-tooth comb.

Mr. Hodges: It is only to make sure that they fully understand it, and do not miss out on the benefits.

Mr. NEWTON: That is true, but under the present set-up very few are successful in gaining exemption.

No doubt all members received a copy of the circular sent out on 12 October, 1970.

Mr. Hodges: By whom?

Mr. NEWTON: By the Police Union. It sets out what happened at the deputation to the Premier, who was then the Minister in charge of the Police Force, and includes copies of correspondence and questions and answers. On that occasion, it was clearly indicated that a breathing spac~ of 10 years would be granted. That was ar-reed to then by the Premier, and, if this is not now to be the position, a1l that we can say is that the Premier has breached a ~romise made to the Police Force.

In addition, the executJVe P.l?rnbers of the Police Union have been placed in an embar­rassing position, because. in tonr;r:g the State explaining to union members w"at took place at the meeting with the Premier as Minister

Police Superannuation [27 NOVEMBER] Act Amendment Bill 2187

in charge of the Police Force, they passed on to their members a promise that had been given to them, and that they now find has been broken.

Another thing that must be taken into consideration in a superannuation scheme is the age at which it can be joined. That is another reason why this scheme is at a disadvantage when compared with the Public Service superannuation scheme. One can join the Public Service superannuation scheme at the age of 16 years, but to join the police superannuation scheme one must be 19 years or over.

Numbers are important in any superannua­tion scheme. To use the example of the Public Service, a person can join the super~ annuation scheme at the age of 16 years and remain a member of it until age 65. If the police superannuation scheme is to be patterned on similar lines, there are certain essential differences. In the Police Force, the retiring age is different from that of the Public Service. The Commissioner, the Deputy Commissioner, and probably the Commissioner's Inspector, do not retire at age 60, which is the age at which all other police personnel retire under the provisions of the present Act.

No superannuation scheme can operate successfully with heavy resignations such as there have been in the Police Force in recent years. Resignations of both commis­sioned and non-commissioned officers have averaged about six a week for some time. In the past 10 months, since January of this year, there have been 107 resignations in the non-commissioned ranks alone. To anyone associated with a superannuation scheme, this is an alarming state of affairs. This information was supplied by the Minister in answer to a question that I asked on behalf of the Opposition concerning resignations in the Police Force.

When the report of the Police Super­annuation Board is studied and one works out what is happening, one sees that at the time the report was printed there were 3,087 contributors, both male and female, and that the amount paid into the fund by the contributors was $720,010. Benefits were paid to 1,086 people and amounted to $1,316,813. Refunds because of resig­nations totalled $78,798. Refunds to another group amounted to $902,443, and the surrender value of reserve units was $3,734. This makes a total of $2,301,788. These are all very important items.

As was pointed out previously, the move­ment of police personnel is a serious problem.

It is to be hoped that, because of the negotiations that took place when the Premier was the Minister in charge of police, members of the Police Force in Queensland are not being penalised by the Government because they would not join the Public Service superannuation scheme.

Mr. Hodges: They were given the oppor­tunity. They were not requested to join it. The matter was discussed with them.

Mr. NEWTON: It was clearly indicated to them that, if they did not accept, the Premier would take the matter back to Cabinet. Whether or not that is correct, it is up to the Government to tell us the position because of what is contained in the circular that I mentioned. In view of the action taken by the Police Union and the Police Officers' Association, there is no doubt that they prefer to retain their own identity. They are different from most other employees of the Government in this State. They have their own Act, they have their own laws and rules by which they must abide, and we have no doubt that this is one of their reasons.

It has already been indicated that the Police Union sought advice from a senior actuary in New South Wales on the sound­ness of this scheme. At a time when these changes are proposed, that was a very wise thing to do. They wanted to know just where their scheme was going. We must not lose sight of the fact that this is a different scheme from most others operating in this State'.

Mr. Houston: Policemen retire at a different age from public servants, and they also have a different entry age.

Mr. NEWTON: That is true. Referring back to what was said by the Treasurer in 1968 when introducing this superannuation scheme, and following through to the second­reading stage, which was taken by the Premier, who then was possibly the Minister for Works and Housing and Minister in charge of police, we see that both hon. gentlemen indicated that the main idea behind setting up a separate Act was to give the Police Force a superannuation scheme as near as practicable to that of the Public Service. If this is so, why has the Gov­ernment not endeavoured to assist the scheme by helping members of the Police Force to carry the 3 per cent. flow-on that applies under this Bill?

Mr. Hooges: The Treasury will pay 65 per cent. of the increase.

Mr. NEWTON: The reason we raise this is that for many years the police superannua­tion scheme has been a bone of contention with serving members of the Police Force and also those who have retired and are re<:eiving benefits under it. This is what we are concerned about. This Bill can have a big bearing on whether the present discontent continues. This is a very important point. There is no doubt that the Minister, in the short time he has been in charge of police affairs, has become fully aware of the matters that I am bringing forward this afternoon on behalf of the Opposition.

Mr. Hodges: Those who study the pro­posal and understand it will appreciate its benefits.

2188 Police Superannuation [27 NovEMBER] Act Amendment Bill

Mr. NEWTON: In the opinion of the Opposition, as contributions for a-ctive mem­bers of the Police Force are to be increased, mass meetings of various sections could be held to study this amending legislation. This would be because of the events I outlined earlier relative to the previous Minister holding the portfolio and to ascertain how the increases will affect members of the force.

For the reasons that I have stated, the Opposition will allow the Bill to be printed. Although it will improve the present situa­tion, the Opposition will look at the pro­visions that may place members of the Police Force at a disadvantage. Labour believes in and supports superannuation schemes, provided they are implemented on an equal basis for both employee and employer. Owing to the peculiar nature of this scheme, we will consider all its pro­visions very carefully.

(Time expired.)

Mr. LICKISS (Mt. Coot-tha) (4.26 p.m.): It is quite interesting to hear the Opposition express a righteous view of the Police Super­annuation Act, when for virtually 40 years of Labour administration--

Mr. Newton: Here we go again!

Mr. LICKISS: The truth hurts. During 40 years of Labour administration the con­tribution was a fiat Si per cent. The Country-Liberal Government, by a very generous scheme, provided a Police Super­annuation Fund more in keeping with the fund to which public servants contribute. It was very interesting to hear the Opposi­tion's spokesman say that the Opposition will graciously allow the Bill to be printed but will study it to learn whether the police will receive justice under it. The hon. member for Belmont said that the Opposition believes in that principle. If that is so, Labour in Opposition has been injected with a fluid different from that which flowed through its veins-I doubt whether it was blood-when it occupied the Treasury benches.

Mr. Jensen interjected.

Mr. LICKISS: The man from the stone age is making his usual inane interjections. He is the cave-man from Bundaberg.

Mr. THACKERAY: I rise to a point of order. Is one hon. member entitled to refer to another as "the man from the stone age"?

The CHAIRMAN: Order! The Chair does not know to whom the hon. member for Mt. Coot-tha was referring.

Mr. JENSEN: I rise to a point of order! At least I have some spunk, unlike the members of the Liberal Party.

The CHAIRMAN: Order!

Mr. LICKISS: I am very pleased that the hon. member has identified himself, as has the prehistoric person from farther north, who is making his usual type of contribution.

To put the Police Superannuation Fund back on the rails and to adopt a more humane and realistic approach to members of the Queensland Police Force, the Treasury Department agreed to grant a 1 0-year exemption. That move exemplifies the Government's desire to do the right thing by the Police Force. The Opposition shows a lack of generosity by failing to acknowledge the Government's generosity when it stag­gered on in Government for 40 years under a system that might be described as unique in the Commonwealth of Nations.

Mr. Jensen: You know that every super­annuation scheme has been upgraded. Why don't you speak the truth?

Mr. LICKISS: The hon. member obviously is inviting comments equal to those he is making. However, I do not propose to deal with him. Usually people like to receive a reward equal to the effort they make. Any­thing I might say about the hon. member would be purely a waste of time.

I had the pleasure of serving on the com­mittee to which reference has been made. It investigated the Police Superannuation Fund prior to the enactment of legislation in this Chamber. It is quite clear that police at various levels did not wish to have their scheme made part of the Public Service scheme. They wanted to retain their identity. The hon. member for Baroona, who has some commercial background-possibly he could spare the time to educate some of his less fortunate colleagues who have not had simi­lar experience-will realise that any super­annuation scheme should be actuarially sound. Indeed, as far as possible, with the Govern­ment's contribution, it should stand on its own feet. What would have been the situa­tion if, when it was decided to introduce a realistic scheme for the Police Force, the Government had not been generous and in­cluded the provision__Jelative to the 10 years for which contributors would not pay more than the base rate of Si per cent? It has been demonstrated actuarial!y that many officers in the 3S-year age group and under received a refund of premiums already paid.

In this world, one cannot expect much for nothing. The scheme envisaged in the BiH to upgrade the police superannuation scheme will be of great benefit to serving members of the Police Force, and of parti­cular benefit to those who intend making the police service their career. When comparing the Public Service superannuation scheme with any other scheme, one must look at the terms of employment of the people con­cerned. It is well known that people may enter the Public Service at a very young age and need not retire till they are 6S years of age. Similar age limits do not apply to members of the Police Force. I hope that

Police Superannuation [27 NovEMBER] Act Amendment Bill 2189

senior members of the Police Force and of the Queensland Police Union realise that the Government intends to upgrade the scheme, and intends to look after not only serving police officers and, in the ultimate, their dependants, but also police officers who have left the service and their dependants.

I could speak about the benefits that will flow to police officers under the revised scheme, but, like other hon. members, I wish to see the Bill before doing so. How­ever, I have no doubt that the passing of the Bill will make this scheme a better and much more interesting one for serving police officers and will tend also to attract those thinking of entering the service.

Mr. SHERRINGTON (Salisbury) (4.34 p.m.): I join with the Opposition's shadow Minister for Police, the hon. member for Belmont, in strongly criticising certain aspects of the Bill. I believe that the obvious signs of unrest in the Police Force will be given impetus by many of the principles con­tained in the measure. If the Minister is successful in his attempt to ascend to the job in the Licensing Commission, for which he is reported to be a certain contender, the members of the Police Force will assemble and give him a policeman's farewell.

The CHAIRMAN: Order!

Mr. SHERRINGTON: This Bill will do nothing but foment the unrest in the Police Force, because it breaks the promise given to policemen that there would be no increased contributions for 10 years. Now, within 18 months of that promise being given, it is being broken.

This will have a serious effect on all serving members of the Force who are 45 years of age and over. From the discussions I have had with many policemen, I should say they will be unable to remain in the force. One person told me that a 58-year­old senior sergeant would be obliged to pay more than $200 out of his fortnightly pay of $190.

As my colleague said, the only way in which some could remain members of the scheme would be to borrow money, and how many people in the community, without collateral, can borrow as much money as would be required by an officer wishing to remain a member of the scheme until his retirement? Under the Bill, a person who cannot afford the higher contributions can opt out. In effect, this will create two types of police pensions-one for the rich and one for the poor.

Mr. Miller: What is the union's attitude to it?

Mr. SHERRINGTON: Never mind about the union's attitude; I am giving my attitude. This will increase the number of resigna­tions from the force.

Mr. Hodges: You are out of touch.

Mr. SHERRINGTON: If anybody is out of touch with the Police Force in this State, it is the Minister. That is why he is making a desperate attempt to say goodbye to this portfolio. He has made two attempts in the past six months. When he could not get to Tokyo, he became interested in another post in Brisbane.

The CHAIRMAN: Order!

Mr. SHERRINGTON: Well, he asked for that, Mr. Hooper, and I think you would concur with me in that regard.

I am heartily sick and tired of hearing speeches like that made by the hon. member for Mt. Coot-tha, who was critical of police pensions in this State under former Labour Governments. He is the "Little Sir Echo" of this Parliament and, in an academic way, chastises Opposition members if they do not do their homework.

I shall go back to 1955 to blast from underneath him the half brick he was stand­ing on. In that year, the then Minister for Labour and Industry (Honourable A. Jones) introduced the Police (Pensions) Bill which, among other things, provided that recipients of police pensions would receive increases which would bring their pensions up to £364. Because of that limit, members were still entitled to draw social service bene­fits. That was universally accepted at the time as being reasonable.

Let us now see what the then Leader of the Opposition, Mr. Nicklin, had to say. He said-

''The method of adjustment that has been adopted by the Minister is very wise. He has increased the pension rates payable to retired members of the Force, the 206 widows who receive only £60 a year, and the 39 widows who receive £104, to a level that will not prohibit them from receiving the fullest possible benefit from the Commonwealth Government's social services scheme. . . That is why I am commending the Minister for what he has done."

These Johnny-come-late!ies like the hon. member for Mt Coot-tha apparently disagree with what was said by the then Leader of the Opposition.

If the hon. member wants to use the excuse that he is only hanging together with the Country Party for political expedience, let us look at what Mr. Dewar said. He said-

"Like my Leader, I believe that the Bill is a goDd one. It represents a realistic approach to the change in money values. It is Dbvious that over the years, with increases in wages, the amount flowing into the fund has increased and it is only sound to bring the benefits into line."

Again, I draw to the attention of the hon. member for Mt. Coot-tha that a principle of superannuation accepted in those days,

2190 Police Superannuation [27 NOVEMBER] Act Amendment Bill

because of State finances and other matters, was that retired policemen should enjoy the benefit of social service payments in addition to their increased pensions.

When the member talks about "lousy treatment of police officers by Labour Governments", let me refresh his memory by quoting what was said by Mr. Jones in the same debate. He said-

"The Government's liability in respect of the present serving members of the Force is calculated at £3,325,617 and in respect of existing pensioners at £1,792,440, or a total of £5, 118,057."

That was the Gvvernment's liability to the pvlice pension fund at that time. Mr. Jones went on to say-

"To increase pensions to existing con­tributors by 20 per cent. will necessitate a further Government contribution of £1,055,811."

He continued-"This makes the overall liability of the

Government comprising payments to the fund since 1 July, 1925, and commitments in respect of current contributors and pen­sioners, £9,036,296, which is equivalent to over £328 for every £100 payable by members of the Force since 1925."

What is the position today? The ratio of contribution by the Government to the recipient was 65: 35. The hon. member for Mt. Coot-tha has the audacity to cvme into the Chamber and talk about Labour's neglect of pvlice pensioners. I answer him by saying that Labour under the accepted principle of police pensi~ns in those days, perlor~ed just as admirably as the Government 1s per­forming now.

Let us look at the question closely. It has always been made clear-this was a promise given by former Police Minister~ that police officers could expect to enJ?Y a superannuation scheme comparable w1th that of public servants. The vast difference to be found in this measure concerns the recent 3 per cent. flow-on, which unde: ~he Public Service scheme was met out of ex1stmg profits of that fund,. whereas, unde: . this scheme it will be pmd for by the rec1p1ents themselves. One realises that in a scheme such as this, where there is this variation of commencing and retiring ages and vast difference in the number of contributors to the fund, the hard cold fact vf the matter is that for members of the Police Force today to enjoy the 3 per cent. flow-on they will have to pay and pay very dearly for it.

I refer back to the 1955 Act and to the period of which the hon. member for Mt. Gravatt was so critical when Mr. Dewar was lauding this scheme. At that time there was an interjection by Mr. Walsh, who said-

"You will gather from what you have read that all contributions were going into the investment fund and the Government are meding all expenditure in pensions out of Consolidated Revenue."

So to suggest that the Labour Party did not endeavour to do the best it possibly could in the circumstances that then existed for members of the Police Force would be to make a completely untrue statement.

I want to deal now with the question of amnesty, which provided that for the next 10 years there would be no increase in the rate of contributions beyond the 5! per cent. that operated in principle since 1955. How can the Government expect to have a contented Police Force in this State when, on the one hand, it extends very laudable provisions under the superannution Act and, on the other hand, snatches them away within approximately 18 months? If the members of the Police Force want the flow-on of 3 per cent. and their super­annuation fund is not actuarially sound, they will have to make a greater contribution. I believe that it is the Government's bounden obligation to make greater contributions to assist in making this fund actuarially sound.

We have witnessed the wilful waste of public money by this Government over the years in the publication of a plethora of costly brochures that have emanated from every department. Thousands of dollars have been literally wasted, basically to satisfy the egos of the Ministers concerned.

Mr. Hughes: Jones has spent $100,000 a year on this.

Mr. SHERRINGTON: Of course, if the hon. member for Kurilpa wants to come into this and mention $100,000, I want to know what connection there is between the Lord Mayor and the Police Force.

I should like to know how much the Government is wasting on these costly brochures, which I believe are circulated merely to satisfy its own ego. I should much prefer to see the Government act in a "fair dinkum" way. It should cut out this stupid means of advertising by costly brochures and use the money for the benefit of the policeman of this State.

Let us face up to it. If we are to have a worth-while Police Force in this State, a reasonable superannuation scheme that all policemen can afford will have to be intro­duced. Unless something drastic is done in the foreseeable future a crisis will develop in the Police Force whether the Minister wants to hide his head in the sand or not. Anybody who contends that there is no crisis in the Police Force today certainly has his head buried in the sand.

The Queensland Police Force has honour­ably discharged its duties to the Govern­ment and the public alike, and there is a bounden obligation on the Government to see that its members, who have spent their lives in the protection of life, property and industry in Queensland, are not abandoned in their retirement. This Bill will create a

Police Superannuation [27 NOVEMBER] Act Amendment Bill 2191

situation in which the more elderly: police­man cannot afford to contribute to the scheme, which will mean that we will have both poor and rich pensioners.

I should like to see more money taken from the State Budget to guarantee the soundness of the police superannuation scheme, instead of being spent on some crazy, half-baked scheme. There is no doubt that unless this type of action is taken dis­content within the Police Force will con'tinue to grow. This State cannot afford further resignations by policemen, nor can it afford to allow to deve1op a situation whereby people who might be attracted to the Police Force do not wish to enter it because the pay is lousy and the superannuation so costly that they cannot afford to provide for their retirement.

Like the hon. member for Belmont, I shall carefully scrutinise the Bill when it is printed. Whether or not the Minister chooses to believe what has been said from this side about unrest in the Police Force is a matter entirely for him. I have had an indication from members of the force, who have been discussing this scheme for weeks, that many of them, particularly the older ones, fear its provisions because they do not know whether they will qualify.

Mr. JENSEN (Bundaberg) (4.54 p.m.): I will not take up much of the Committee's time, but I want to bring forward a few points that I think should be mentioned. During my lifetime I have been very for­tunate in being a member of various super­annuation schemes. I believe in superannua­tion. There is something wrong with any man who does not. All my life I have paid more for superannuation than the a:llowable income-tax deduction, because I believe that every man should be covered by it.

Every member of the Police Force should be entitled to benefit from this scheme. I sympathise with those who will not be elig­ible to do so. The situation is scandalous. A man who has devoted his life to the Police Force is entitled to retire in dignity. Even if a relaxation of the provisions was involved, every member of the Police Force should be allowed to participate in the scheme.

I would enter any superannuation scheme that would adequately care for my family and myself after retirement. The Govern­ment stipulates that police officers must retire at 60 years of age. The Police Force is one of the few fields of employment whose personnel are required to retire at that age. Of course, the Government's excuse is that the promotion of junior officers must be pro­vided for. That may be so, but not every­body can be at the top; certain employees must complete the whole of their working life without being promoted to senior posi­tions. A policeman who attains the age of 60 years has not outlived his usefulness. Many retired police officers are more mentally alert and physically fit than other employees of

60 years of age. Some of the older police officers in Bundaberg could throw any man in the Chamber, including the Minister. As well, they have a very wide knowledge of the laws of the State. The Minister is look­ing for recruits, yet he is employing young police officers on trivial duties such as issuing permits to people to speak on street corners and checking electoral rolls. A man of 60 could be employed on that type of work but under the present provisions police officers who retire are precluded from doing so. Young men are performing these menial tasks when they should be patrolling the streets.

Tbe CHAIRMAN: Order! The Bill deals with police superannuation.

Mr. JE~~SEN: With respect, Mr. Hooper, I am talkmg about superannuation.

The CHAIRMAN: Order! The hon member is talking about the re-placement of police officers.

Mr. JENSEN: I am sorry for those police officers who are forced to retire this year. They are some of the best men in the Police yorce. One jlOlice officer in Bundaberg who IS about to retire has picked up more criminals than a group of the younger men could ~ick up. He has been in the game all his !1fe. A man who retires at 60 years of age IS not useless. He could continue to perform a worth-while service to the State. I want the Minister to have these facts clear in his mind, because he may not hold his portfolio for much longer.

Tae CHAIRMAN: Order!

Mr. .lENSEN: I sympathise with those men who will be forced to retire and then seek employment elsewhere to maintain their f<l:mili~s. In Bundaberg, retired police officers will e1ther have to go bean-picking or be forced to become night"watchmen.

Hon. A. M. HODGES (Gympie-Minister for Wo.rks and ~ousing) (4.59 p.m.), in reply: There Is very httle that I have to reply to because very few Opposition members referred to ~uperannuation. Opposition members questiOned whether the scheme would be acceptable to the Police Union and members of the Police Force.

Mr. Newton: We did not say it was not We said we hoped it would be. ·

Mr. HODGES: I assure the hon member that it w~ll be. The secretary of th~ Queens­land Pohce Umon appreciates the value of this scheme so much that he wrote me a four-page letter commending it and makin" a. special. request, on his own behalf, t~ d1vorce himself from the scheme he is in so tha~ he can join the new police super­annuatiOn scheme.

Mr. Newton: Is that one of the good letters you got?

2192 Questions Upon Notice [1 DECEMBER]

Mr. HODGES: I get quite a few good letters from the secretary of the union.

If I were to reply to all that was said this afternoon I would not be confining my remarks to the Bill, and I think that you, Mr. Hooper, would ask me to resume my seat.

In reply to the claim that the Government should contribute more to this scheme, I point out that at present the Government is contri­buting a little more than $2,000,000, and will contribute 65 per cent. of the 3 per cent. for present contributors, at a cost of $397,000, and 65 per cent. of the 3 per cent. for present annuitants, at a cost of $120,000. So the Government is contributing substantially to assist policemen in having a superannuation scheme comparable with the Public Service superannuation scheme.

I will reply fully to hon. members' com­ments at the second-reading stage.

Motion (Mr. Hodges) agreed to.

Resolution reported.

FIRST 'READING

Bill presented and, on motion of Mr. Hodges, read a first time.

The House adjourned at 5.4 p.m.

Questions Upon Notice